Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing Acquisition

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have been acquired, or are in the course of acquisition, under the scheme outlined in Circular 70 of 1974; what is the total amount of loans for which sanction has been sought under the scheme; and what financial limitations there are on the rate of expansion of the programme of acquisition.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The returns so far submitted by local authorities in England and Wales show that under the general consent given in Circular 70/74 some £60 million was spent on about 7,400 existing houses from April to 30th September last. Some £20 million has been approved for acquisitions falling outside the general consent. The expenditure limits on next year's acquisition will be higher than those in use for 1974–75.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my hon. Friend agree that a total of 7,000 is totally inadequate and that a successful municipalisation programme will necessarily involve compensation on the same lines as any other nationalisation programme, such as by the issue of Government stock rather than by cash, as the cash involved would be excessively inflationary?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend and I have discussed that suggestion several times. I see severe drawbacks to that way of handling the purchase of rented dwellings, but there are aspects of it which bear further examination. No

doubt we can pursue that matter on another occasion.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the Minister satisfied that local authorities which are acquiring properties are carrying out adequate surveys beforehand and are not later finding that they have landed their ratepayers with impossible burdens of repair?

Mr. Freeson: This must vary from one kind of property to another. After all, one of the main objectives that the Government have set in this field and which we are trying to encourage local authorities to pursue is the purchase of properties which are in need of modernisation and improvement. Indeed, I would wish to see local authorities concentrate most of their activities on a programme basis in such areas. It would inevitably follow from this that a considerable level of expenditure would be involved in many instances in such modernisation, conversion and repair, since the properties in question would be in grave need of it in such areas.

Railways (Children's Fares)

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary or State for the Environment whether he will direct British Rail to extend children's half-fares from under-14 years of age to under the statutory school leaving age of 16 years, in order to encourage the use of this form of public transport.

The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): No. It would not be appropriate for me to issue directives on detailed aspects of fares policy. Concessions on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend already exist for season tickets for school journeys and for family travel.

Mrs. Wise: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people think there was a complete lack of logic in the failure to extend half-fare concessions to take account of increases in the statutory school leaving age? If he cannot direct that this be done, will he at least encourage it, bearing in mind that the years between 14 and 16 are extremely expensive for parents, so that the absence of these concessions is not only lacking in logic but presents serious practical difficulties for families? We want to encourage and enable people to use public transport, do we not?

Mr. Mulley: I agree that we should take all reasonable steps to encourage the use of public transport. However, for journeys to school half-price tickets are already available, not only up to 16 but up to the age of 18, and there is a very successful reduced fares scheme, which is commercially viable as well, for students over 18. Thus the objective that my hon. Friend has in mind is met by British Railways. However, if she knows of any particular difficulties and will let me know about them, I shall certainly draw them to the Board's attention.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that arrangement is not particularly suitable in Scotland? Will he bear in mind that the original reason for fixing 14 as the age was that it was the compulsory school leaving age? Now that it has been increased by statute to 16, surely the same logic and the same reasoning should result in the extension of this privilege. Will he try to remember that these fares are a very costly charge to the working man's weekly income?

Mr. Mulley: As I have already explained, children who regularly use the railways to go to and from school can and usually do get half-price tickets. For holiday and leisure purposes they would normally, travel with their families, and their are similar family concessions available for peak periods which I think cater reasonably for this need.

One-bedroom Housing

Mrs. Ann Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to encourage local authorities to increase their stock of one-bedroomed accommodation.

Mr. Freeson: We will be issuing advice very soon to local authorties on ways to increase the stock of one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed dwellings.

Mrs. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is indeed a great and an increasing shortage of one-bedroom accommodation? Does he agree that if local authorities were to increase their stock of this type of accommodation they could make better use of existing stock by transferring tenants from houses which are under-occupied, which would result

in a rationalisation of the present housing situation?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I suggest also that in at least some circumstances it is a question not simply of building new stock but possibly of adapting existing large stock where the demand is not so great in order to increase the availability of small dwellings that way. Also, there is a much better provision in this matter in new construction by local authorities generally than there is in the private sector, and the advice which we shall be issuing will cover that aspect of the subject as well as local authorities' works.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the Minister's statement and I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) since both one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation is very much in demand. The figures from my local authority indicate that over 100 applicants need only one-bedroom accommodation. Will the Minister please expedite his instructions to local authorities, which will assist them in this matter—which no doubt will arise in our debate tomorrow?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly welcome the support from the Liberal benches and that which is given as a whole. I emphasise that the advice will be issued very shortly.

Mr. Scott: May I also welcome the promise of a circular? Might not the Minister encourage local authorities to take a more relaxed attitude towards lodgers in council accommodation, because this would help to maximise the use of the existing housing stock?

Mr. Freeson: We are examining this aspect of the housing scene also as part of a general look we have initiated recently at the use of stock across the board—not only local authority housing stock but housing stock within local authority areas—to see how better it might be used for various initiatives which can be taken.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now prepare a White Paper setting out all the relevant correspondence and details of


discussions which took place from 26th November 1974 to 20th January 1975 between his Department, the French Government, British Rail and the Channel Tunnel companies, resulting in his decision to withdraw the support of Her Majesty's Government for the Channel Tunnel project.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already explained how it came about that the British Government saw no alternative to accepting the companies' formal claim of abandonment.

Mr. Adley: Is not the Minister aware that there are—to put it no higher—different interpretations of events and that there is a belief that, given essential good will on all sides, a different solution might well have been found? Is he aware that moves are being made in the European Parliament and elsewhere to try to engender European financial interest in this project? Will he give an assurance that he will keep an open mind on these discussions pending an approach which is likely to be made to his right hon. Friend before the end of this month?

Mr. Mulley: As to the last point, I have said several times that we shall be very willing to consider any such proposals for a European involvement in the costs of the tunnel but so far we have had no such proposals. As to the other point, I do not think anyone has denied that whereas the two Governments were anxious to reach a standstill arrangement, which would have got us over the difficulty of 31st December and safeguarded the rights of all involved while discussions took place, we did not get any communication from the companies until after 31st December, and that was a formal notice of abandonment. That was the difficulty in which we were placed. It was a difficulty clearly foreseen by the previous Government, because they made extensive provision for it in the agreement.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although a decision not to go ahead with the project has been taken, men are, apparently, still carrying on digging, from both ends? Is it not about time someone told them to stop? [An HON. MEMBER: "NVT."] Although I can commend to my right hon. Friend some very worthy projects for consideration,

either as workers' co-operatives or as candidates for the National Enterprise Board, will he please ensure that this is not one of them.

Mr. Mulley: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. So far, although we have had many helpful proposals about how we might proceed, no one has suggested a workers' co-operative. The reason why some work is still continuing is that, as my right hon. Friend has informed the House, we are desirous of retaining much information as to the work which has been done, and one or two tests are still being completed. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that this is not adding substantially to the costs already incurred.

National Bus Company

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the annual report and accounts of the National Bus Company.

Mr. Mulley: By the middle of the year.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the report of a statement he made to a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party about the grave condition of the National Bus Company, it is high time that a statement was made by him on the Floor of the House so that we might see whether the company has come to him to seek immediate cash assistance and, if so, whether the figure of £25 million is correct?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that sometimes Press reports are not a wholly accurate account of what transpires in private meetings. But it is well known that the National Bus Company, like all public service transport undertakings, is operating at a loss in present circumstances. I am having discussions with the chairman. If the need arises, the Government will take the necessary steps to assist the company. Publication of last year's accounts would not assist either the hon. Gentleman or the House to assess the situation in 1975, which is our immediate concern.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that


the reason for the present financial problems of the National Bus Company is the counter-inflation policy of the previous Government, which did not permit nationalised industries to increase their rates in accord with the inflation that was taking place at that time?

Mr. Mulley: This probably was a factor in the deficits incurred by a number of public sector industries. But that does not apply in present circumstances.

Mr. Tom King: Is the Minister aware that, at this time of great concern about the high cost of petrol in rural areas, Treasury Ministers are giving the answer that greater reliance will be placed by the Government on the use of public transport? In the circumstances of the National Bus Company and with more and more counties seriously concerned as to whether they can continue to subsidise local bus services, and at a time when the bus companies are coming forward with much greater demands for subsidies, what will the right hon. Gentleman do to preserve even the present limited fabric of bus services?

Mr. Mulley: I am very much concerned about the problem. Only yesterday my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was having discussions with the local authorities. He has already met the operators and the trade unions with a view to trying to find a way out of these very difficult problems. One of the difficulties is that it is recognised that in many rural areas it is not viable to run reasonable bus services and that the counties, as they have powers under the transport supplementary grant, should make subsidies to them. Counties which included this in their plans obtained a grant specifically for that purpose in the TSG recently announced. The trouble is that many counties have either cut back on their plans or are contemplating doing so. This is a great difficulty, because the whole concept has been that the counties should have some regard to the social service aspects of these routes.

Rent Act 1974

Dr. Hampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will expedite his proposed survey on the operation of the Rent Act 1974 in view

of the latest representations about its effects.

Mr. Freeson: The Department is already monitoring the operation of the Act as closely as possible.

Dr. Hampson: Does the Minister believe that fair rents should also be a fair return on landlords' capital? If rent officers continue to fix rents which give a return of only about 3 per cent., how on earth does the Minister hope to arrest the collapse in the private rented market brought about by the Act, which is making thousands homeless when local authorities cannot cope?

Mr. Freeson: We are committed to review the operation of the Rent Acts, and certain aspects of the point the hon. Gentleman has raised will fall to be considered under the housing finance review on which we are embarking.
As regards the loss of rented property from the market, there seems on the whole to be a fairly consistent experience in this through all types of legislative situation. So far as I am aware, the figures are not increasing now. The position has been, roughly speaking, that about 100,000 rented dwellings have left the market per year for the last decade or more.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: In view of the campaign of vilification and misrepresentation against the Rent Act 1974, which has been mounted particularly by certain newspapers which should know better, will my hon. Friend undertake a publicity campaign to let landlords, particularly resident landlords, know the very considerable advantages conferred upon them by the Act?

Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly consider that and call for a review of the publicity material that we have been using to see whether we can put across the facts about the Act more effectively. It is true that, due to the failure to be able to print the Act at an early stage, and also to some of the propaganda activities in certain fields, there has been misunderstanding by a number of resident landlords about their position. I believe that this is now being corrected and I shall do my best to encourage the process of correction.

Economic Development Committee for Building

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to attend personally the next meeting of the Economic Development Committee for Building on which his Department is represented at official level.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.

Mr. Latham: Would not such a visit allow the Minister to confirm the EDC's latest forecast of a fall in new construction output in 1975 of 6 per cent. over 1974?

Mr. Freeson: I do not need to attend a meeting of the EDC in order to keep contact with all sections of the building industry, with all the various forecasts which are being made, and with work in that industry. I am well aware of the EDC's forecasts. They are gloomy. The situation is very difficult. I am not quite as pessimistic about the situation as these forecasts would suggest that we should be.

Central Lancashire New Town

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is to be made in the Central Lancashire New Town in respect of hospitals, doctors, dentists and social workers; and whether these provisions reflect estimated population increases by 1986.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): Proposals for the provision of health and social services for the estimated future population of Central Lancashire New Town are described in the development corporation's outline plan, recently the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector's report on the inquiry is awaited and it will be some time before final decisions are reached.

Mr. Thorne: What advice was given to the development corporation about the planning of these facilities in line with the Skeffington Report? Were any recommendations made to the corporation about consulting people and organisations in the area with regard to the supply of these facilities?

Mr. Silkin: The proposals in the outline plan are based on discussions with the corporation and also with authorities having responsibility for the provision of these services. Those discussions are of a continuing nature, because obviously as time passes the aspect may change. We try to mirror that, because my Department holds informal consultations with the appropriate Departments so that we have a full and continuing picture and the various priorities can be kept in step.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether his announcement last year of the increase in the percentage of rented houses that he is to apply to all new towns up to a total of 75 per cent. is to apply to the Central Lancashire New Town?

Mr. Silkin: I should not have thought that that question arose out of the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), but if the House will grant me some indulgence I will say that the hon. and learned Gentleman should carefully consider what I have said. He will see it fairly clearly stated, I hope, in the consultation document on new towns and he will see that the basis is not a fixed proportion but that we shall eliminate as soon as possible the waiting list in new towns, particularly for second generation families, and that in doing so inevitably we will give greater weight to rented accommodation, which is needed in the new towns, than to houses for sale.

Pigeons

Mr. Charles Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps and research he has taken to control the activities of pigeons on public buildings.

Mr. Freeson: Wire screens, nylon mesh, sticky jel; but no research.

Mr. Irving: Is not the Minister aware that the damage caused by these birds to public buildings amounts to over £20 million a year? Will he consider an amendment to the Public Health Act 1936, or perhaps follow the example of the French and put the pigeons on the pill?

Mr. Freeson: I shall consider the points the hon. Gentleman has put to


me. In the meantime, I hope that he comes to no harm.

Hardwoods (Planting)

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to encourage the planting of hardwoods.

Mr. John Silkin: The Government offer a supplementary grant of £125 per hectare for hardwood planting under the Forestry Commission's new dedication scheme. My right hon. Friend's own Department plants many hardwoods and other trees—for example, along the motorways—assists local authority planting schemes and supports the Tree Council. Moreover, grants for planting in the countryside may be available from the Countryside Commission.

Mr. Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent reply. I appreciate his Department's concern. Has his right hon. Friend had discussions with the Treasury, and has he pointed out to the Treasury that the effect of its capital transfer tax will be very damaging to British forestry and that all the good intentions of his Department will be frustrated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is not careful?

Mr. Silkin: I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's contribution to a debate on 21st January and I believe I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at that time that he would carefully consider all the representations which had been made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, as indeed I welcome the encouraging of every form of planting of small copses of hardwoods. Will he urge the bringing under proper planting control of large-scale planting of softwoods, which is terribly damaging over many parts of the countryside?

Mr. Silkin: I shall certainly consider the question, as I must whenever my hon. Friend makes a suggestion, because of his well-known history of interest in and concern for the environment. I know that the planting of suitable trees in suitable places is a matter of great concern. I shall look at the problem.

Pedestrian Crossings (Essex)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for pedestrian crossings have been made and approved, respectively, in respect of the county of Essex during the past year.

Mr. Mulley: Of 14 applications for pelican crossings, five were approved and three are still under consideration. My approval is not required for zebra crossings.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, in Buckhurst Hill and Loughton in my constituency there are several spots where terrible accidents have occurred and it is very difficult to get appropriate action? Does not the Department think that this is rather over-centralised and that local authorities should have more discretion in such matters?

Mr. Mulley: I think the difficulty in the example the hon. Gentleman quoted was that the proposed crossing was very near a junction and it would have given rise to traffic difficulties. The initiative in all these cases is for the local authority when it makes the site proposals. We have extended the use of the pelican crossing. As I have said, we do not seek to control zebra crossings. We have extended the criteria for pelican crossings and when we are satisfied that the scheme is working well we shall probably be able to relax that control too.

Bus Purchase Grants

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the controls exercised by his Department over the administration of bus purchase grants for stage carriage operators.

Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir. The procedures have already been revised to reduce the opportunities for fraudulent grant claims. My officials are also discussing with the operators their estimates of future bus purchases.

Mr. Huckfield: My right hon. Friend knows that millions of pounds are involved. What about the case of Barton's, Britain's biggest independent operator,


which last year actually made a profit out of selling five-year-old buses and buying new ones under the grant scheme? What about the Newport cases last November where, for example, in the Moseley case some £10,000 in costs and fines were awarded? What about the Don Everall case in which £2,000 in costs and fines was awarded—[Interruption.] Can I say to my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked three supplementary questions already.

Mr. Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the stories now circulating about dealers and operators who have had to hand money back and have still not been taken to court? Is he not concerned that a worthwhile scheme which should be helping hard-pressed public transport is being turned into a gigantic milking machine for filling private operators' pockets?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend tends sometimes to use colourful language. We have made some amendments to meet the point and there have been 16 successful prosecutions involving six operators and two distributors. If my hon. Friend has information which he thinks we can use to correct any existing abuses or possible abuses of the scheme, he knows that I am available to talk about these things. That is probably a better way to do it than by parliamentary question and answer.

Mr. Fry: In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), many bus operators are in a desperate position and services are being drastically cut. People are not able to get to work, particularly in rural areas. When I raised this matter with the Prime Minister he suggested that I should take it up with the Minister of Transport. For once I am taking the Prime Minister's advice and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman when his Government will do something to produce a transport policy to serve people in the rural areas.

Mr. Mulley: I think the hon. Member knows enough about the facts of transport to realise that it is easy to make a declamatory statement about the problems of rural transport, but it is not easy to produce a scheme especially when,

perhaps for understandable reasons, many county councils are unwilling to make contributions to the social service this transport system would provide.

Roads (Sussex)

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, following his decision not to proceed with the Channel Tunnel, how quickly he now expects to be able to announce improvements to the congested roads serving the port of Newhaven and surrounding areas.

Mr. Mulley: As I told the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) on 3rd February, we are considering the general implications of the decision on the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that we have been waiting for more than a year since consultations about road schemes took place in my constituency, particularly for the relief of Lewes but also for the whole of the surrounding area of Newhaven? Is it not time that the Minister gave his decision on these road schemes? This is a social matter for the people involved. Will the Minister give a specific answer to the questions which he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have avoided answering for far too long?

Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Member probably knows, work on the new southern bypass for Lewes is expected to begin this year, and I expect construction of the Falmer diversion to begin during 1976. The Question asked what we had done since the decision on the Channel Tunnel was taken on 20th January.

Mr. Rathbone: Nothing.

Mr. Mulley: We are considering this point. Hon. Members would do well to bear in mind that practically all hon. Members are in favour of road schemes in their constituencies but that whenever a line has to be drawn on a map there is the most intense opposition. If we are to take public participation procedures seriously—they were introduced by the last Conservative Government—this adds two or three years to the time between taking a decision to build a road and being able to begin construction. In addition, we have cut back the size of the road programme for reasons of general economic stringency.

Mr. Costain: is the Minister aware that British Railways can extend their port facilities without the necessity of planning permission by the local authority? Great congestion occurs in towns where such expansion takes place. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to meet a deputation which I will bring to him headed by the Chairman of the Shepway District Council, who can explain the situation personally?

Mr. Mulley: I have written to the hon. Gentleman to say that we will be happy to talk to him about any problems arising from the Channel Tunnel. If on that occasion he would like to bring representatives of his district council, naturally I or my hon. Friend would be very happy to see them.

Rate Support Grant (Cheshire)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now say what rate support grant for 1975–76 will be available to the Cheshire County Council.

Mr. John Silkin: The county council now has details of its initial needs element grant entitlement. The figure is some £46·8 million. The county will also benefit indirectly from the resources element grant.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that gracious and informative answer, but is he aware that the ratepayers of Cheshire, as elsewhere in the country, experienced massive rate increases last year? Even with a no-growth situation for all services, they will experience this year further massive increases, certainly in excess of 35 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Secretary of State to bring in special rate relief for domestic ratepayers because of the intolerable situation which faces them?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that Cheshire can complain too much about the meanness of the central Government. The grant this year is 47 per cent. higher in money terms that it was last year, and Cheshire has received £12 million through our increase order for 1974–75.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are exceedingly grateful to my right hon. Friend for the extra money, which was exceedingly useful to the Cheshire County Council. The

sooner we can offer a fundamental review of the entire rating system, however, the sooner we shall get away from the nonsense which requires very substantial grants from the central Government for absolutely essential services.

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. We are all concerned about the effect of rates from whichever side of the House we come. It was for that purpose that the Layfield committee of inquiry was set up by my right hon. Friend.

Empty Housing

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he can give about the performance of local authorities in dealing with empty houses and flats.

Mr. Freeson: About 4,100 empty properties have been bought under Circular 70/74 by local authorities in the first half of this financial year. A number of local authorities are organising special quick repair and lettings services. About 90 local authorities are levying 100 per cent. rates on empty properties. I am examining further initiatives which might be taken to increase the use of empty properties generally.

Mr. Jessel: Will the Minister direct his attention to empty houses and flats which are already in the possession of local authorities? Will he endeavour to galvanise those local authorities into dealing with them urgently? Is he aware of reports of about half a million houses and flats in the possession of local authorities which are empty? Are these figures correct? If they are not, what are the correct figures and what are the Government going to do about this situation?

Mr. Freeson: The end-of-year survey which has been undertaken over a number of years shows, according to the latest figures, that the hon. Member's figure is erroneous. The figure is about 1 per cent. of the total stock—that is, 1 per cent. of 5½ million.

Mr. Jessel: What is the absolute figure?

Mr. Freeson: The figure is about 1 per cent. of the 5½, million dwellings owned by local authorities. As for chasing up local authorities I shall be considering, as I have suggested, what steps


I can take. I urge the hon. Member to turn his attention to his own local authority, where, I understand, about 1,000 empty properties have been on the market for more than six months and these could have been purchased by the local authority if it set its mind to the task.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider proposals which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) last week to give local authorities power to requisition properties in order that homeless people might be housed in them?

Mr. Freeson: I have considered requisitioning on a number of occasions over the past year. Each time I have come to the conclusion, having studied the matter very closely, that this would not be an effective way of achieving the objective I wish to achieve. However, I certainly hope to come to the House and announce initiatives in this area not too long from now.

Government Offices (London)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many square feet of office space is rented by Government Departments in the London area; and what is the total annual rental.

Mr. Freeson: The figures are 14·4 million square feet; and £39·4 million in this financial year.

Mr. Lipton: Those staggering figures are no joke. To what extent has the Government's policy on dispersal reduced them in the past year or so, and to what extent is it likely to reduce them during the next year or two?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot speak for the past year, but the Government's dispersal programme will lead to savings in London rents amounting to about £27 million a year, at current figures, by the time the programme is complete, and a total reduction of 4·25 million square feet is expected.
Various aspects of the matter need to be considered. It is not only a question of dispersal policy. It is also a question of the availability of capital to get Crown buildings provided, to avoid the leasing of buildings at high rents. But this is a much more complicated and more questionable

area of examination, because it brings me into the whole area of public expenditure and the total allocations that must be made.

Mr. Sainsbury: What is the current annual rental value of the office buildings occupied by the Government in London, as opposed to the rent paid? The Minister referred to the opportunities to build Crown buildings. Is he aware how long the discussions have been going on on this subject? Is he aware of the advantages in efficiency of operation in modern purpose-designed buildings that could flow from the Government's taking advantage of the opportunities open to them to build on vacant sites that they now own, or have the option to own, in central London for office development?

Mr. Freeson: The construction of Crown buildings has been under consideration for a long time and has been the subject of economies under successive Governments over many years. It is not possible merely to say "Build more" without involving oneself in an expansion of public expenditure. It is not a cheap exercise. There are matters which constrain us and drive the Government into rented buildings.
I cannot give a full answer off-the cuff to the question about current rental values of properties that have been under-rented as a result of the business rent controls and the freeze. I believe that if rents were to be charged at current levels following the freeze the additional amount for 1975–76 would be about £6·5 million nationally.

Harlow New Town

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the expansion of Harlow New Town.

Mr. John Silkin: I am considering the development corporation's recommendations. If I decide to proceed, I shall consult the local authorities before making a draft order extending the designated area of the town.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend, whose recent visit to Harlow was much appreciated, bear in mind that the expansion of Harlow has been under serious consideration for about 10 years and that it is vital to second-generation applicants, both sides of industry, all the


authorities concerned and the population as a whole that a decision should be reached at an early stage? Can he say anything about the time scale for bringing the matter to a conclusion? There is considerable impatience in the area over the whole business and the delay we suffered before my right hon. Friend took over responsibility.

Mr. Silkin: If I were to proceed to make a draft order, my expectation would be that the process would be completed within 12 months from now. I understand that I would probably be sent to the Tower if I discussed the merits of the case at this stage.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received so far from neighbouring authorities, interests and individuals? What attention is being paid to such representations?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that I would be acting properly if at this stage I were to make the matter public. I have said that it is a question which I must consider in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Molsworth Airfield

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why the Defence Land Agent has failed to pursue his negotiations for the offer to the previous owners of any of the 636 acres of agricultural land surplus to Service requirements at the former Molsworth Airfield, in spite of the recommendation of the Defence Lands Committee (the Nugent Committee) on page 204 of its Report that those 636 acres should be disposed of.

Mr. Freeson: There has been no such failure. Under the normal procedure for disposal of surplus land, offers are made to the other Government Departments and public authorities first. The Central Electricity Generating Board may need the property, and its decision is awaited.

Sir David Renton: Is it a fact that the CEGB wants the land for a nuclear power station? Would it not be a bad site for such a station? Is the Minister aware that the land has been blighted for three years? It is a good farmland. Why is the hon. Gentleman withholding it from production because of the speculative possibility of a power station there?

Mr. Freeson: It is not a question of withholding it from agricultural use as a matter of deliberate policy because there is a speculative possibility of a power station. The procedure laid down has been followed by successive Governments. Questions as to whether nuclear power generation is a suitable use of the land should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. All I would say is that if a decision in favour of such a station is made by the CEGB, in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the planning procedure must be gone through. Planning application must be made.

Thermal Insulation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to encourage local authorities to improve thermal insulation standards in existing public-sector housing.

Mr. Freeson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) on 25th November 1974.—[Vol. 882, c. 89.]

Mr. Rost: That was not very satisfactory. Does the Minister accept that whereas owner-occupiers have an incentive to spend money on improving their property with thermal insulation, because it increases the value of the property, there is no such incentive for tenants of local authority housing, nor is there such an incentive for local authorities to spend money on thermal insulation, because it is not the authorities who pay the heating bills? What will the hon. Gentleman do about this in the interests of energy conservation?

Mr. Freeson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts a little wrong. The position, as I stated in the previous reply, is that the installation of central heating and insulation in existing council houses is already accepted for subsidy purposes if it forms part of a comprehensive scheme of improvement and conversion.
As to the position of tenants, there is nothing to prevent local authorities and tenants or tenants' associations negotiating arrangements—I know that some do—whereby tenants can undertake certain works on a reimbursable basis. I hope


that if tenants go to their local authority with a view to undertaking insulation arrangements they will be suitably assisted by the authority.

Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friend sends out any circulars on this matter or any other within the ambit of his Department that result in local authorities having to spend money which they may not have taken into account in the period between the two financial years, will he also send one of the circulars to the district auditors in order that they may be informed that the Government have suggested to local authorities that there is a need to spend money? That kind of suggestion was made by the previous Government, when the Minister responsible sent out a circular instructing local authorities to spend money on environmental matters to cut down the long list of unemployed people, and because one local authority—Clay Cross—did that the district auditor has tried to haul its members before the court.

Mr. Freeson: It would be improper for me to involve myself on the Floor of the House in matters which are the subject of representations before a district auditor.
I have no plans to issue any circular about thermal insulation, although I am sure that I shall be issuing circulars on other matters concerned with housing policy.

House Building

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of housing starts in the private sector in the last six months of 1974 as compared with the same period in 1973.

Mr. Freeson: In the five months July-November 1974, starts in Great Britain were 38,900. Over the same period in 1973 there were 83,300 houses started. Provisional figures for December 1974 will be published tomorrow.

Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the building merchants' index shows that the decline in private house-building is likely to continue into the next six months of this year? What measures have he and the Department in mind to stimulate the building of houses

rather than the demand for them, which the measures announced so far have had the effect of doing?

Mr. Freeson: The implications of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question are a little unfortunate in the present situation. He should recall, as was made clear when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement on 27th January, that the financial initiatives had been made after the fullest consultation with builders' representatives and building society representatives and that they were welcomed by both elements. We believe that the initiatives will contribute to boosting morale and the demand and provision of houses in the coming months. We in this House as well as the Government should be doing everthing we can to assist builders in that direction.

Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that among the lessons to be learnt from the fluctuations in private house building is the complete inadequacy of private enterprise as a means of constructing homes for our people?

Mr. Freeson: Certainly there are some basic structural problems on the financial side of housing provision and in the structure of the building industry as such. These matters will fall to be considered within our housing finance study, upon which we have already embarked, and in further consideration of other aspects of housing construction which we shall be initiating in future.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does the Minister agree that under all Governments tens of thousands of housing starts are held up each year because of the actions of local authorities and his own Department? Does he accept that when permission is sought to erect a dwelling or to convert a property into flats it takes up to 12 months to obtain planning consent? Is he aware that that has nothing to do with planning as such, as every expert is aware, but is purely bureaucratic inefficiency? In order to help the homeless, will he try to be a reforming Minister and make a determined attempt to reduce the period that has to be spent in obtaining planning consent?

Mr. Freeson: Both my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and


Local Government and myself, and the Secretary of State, are very much concerned with the rôle of planning procedures. To deal with this matter in such generalised terms as the hon. Gentleman has put to the House is not helpful or constructive. If the hon. Gentleman likes to put specific case material to us I assure him that we shall probe all such cases to see whether there are lessons to be learnt and whether any action can be initiated. We shall certainly act.

Football Referees

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consult the Football Association about its policy of sexual discrimination with regard to the appointment of football referees.

Mr. John Silkin: The Football Association is represented on the Central Council for Physical Recreation, as are the other governing bodies of sport. This council and the Sports Council are now considering the proposals in the White Paper "Equality for Women" Cmnd. 5724.

Mr. Steen: I am much encouraged by the Minister's reply. My only regret is that the Minister responsible—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister impress upon the Football Association that it seems unfair, if not unjust, that men can referee women's matches but women are not allowed to referee men's matches? Is he aware that there is a young woman school teacher in my constituency who has been refused registration by the local football association? This woman has passed Class 3 of the Football Association's rules but has been refused registration merely because she is a woman. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 70 women throughout the country similarly qualified who wish to referee men's football matches but have been refused only because they are women?

Mr. Silkin: I yield to no one in my approval of any measure that is designed to create equality for women. On the other hand, it is true that the Central Council for Physical Recreation has pointed out one or two complications that might arise in a strict application of this

proposal relating to football. Those complications are at present being considered by the Government. I can promise the hon. Gentleman, if the House will not misunderstand me, that the council in question is engaged in a close and continuing contact with sporting women's bodies.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As a serious question, may I ask my right hon. Friend how many women are on the Central Council for Physical Recreation? Further, will he tell me how many women are represented on the governing bodies of many of the sporting organisations? Is it not indicative of the problems we face in straightforward teaching that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the House find this a matter for amusement?

Mr. Silkin: It is, as my hon. Friend says, a serious subject. I am therefore happy to inform her that the Central Council for Physical Recreation represents all governing bodies in sport including those concerned exclusively with sport for women.

Mr. Monro: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he sounds rather like a player who played for a team that started the season badly and then fell away? I do not want to become involved with Liverpool and Everton, but does the Minister accept that the Government should in no way get themselves involved in the internal arrangements of our sporting bodies and associations?

Mr. Silkin: I was trying to point out that the advice of those concerned was perhaps the most important matter to be considered. As for teams that fall away, I think that the hon. Gentleman represents an excellent team on his side of the House that has fallen away recently.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Football Association to appoint the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) a referee, because she would not need a whistle?

Rates

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what evidence he bases his prediction that the total rate demand for 1975–76 should not on average exceed that for the current year by more than 25 per cent.

Mr. John Silkin: On the basis that the Government have made a major increase in grant, and that local authorities will keep their expenditure down to the rates of growth allowed for in the settlement and rate realistically.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Greater London Council announced yesterday that it anticipated an increase of 80 per cent. over last year? Rugby has already announced a 61 per cent. increase and Westminster has announced a 70 per cent. increase. The Deputy-Leader of the GLC has indicated that the London boroughs will show an average increase of no less than 50 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where the balancing figures are to come from to bring about the Government's pledge of 25 per cent.?

Mr. Silkin: It might be as well to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said at the time, namely:
if, and only if, local authorities stick to their side of the bargain, I reckon that the average increase—I stress the word 'average'—will be about 25 per cent.…"—[Official Report, 12th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 788.]
Of course, when there is an average many increases are above the average and a number are below it. It is surprising that I never seem to receive any representations from those who are below the average.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend point out the importance of making clear the basis on which these figures are calculated, as in some cases areas have been extremely fortunate in their position in the past?

Mr. Silkin: That is a very fair point to make. While I am making fair points I remind the House—[Interruption.] I always make fair points. This has been the largest Government grant to local authorities in history. It has increased by virtually two-thirds from £3,431 million to £5,434 million.

Mr. Channon: Does not the Minister recognise that in spite of that the increase in the rates this year is likely to be the highest on record, with the possible exception of last year? Will he publish a list of the authorities that he thinks will be below the average so that we may see whether they exist and where they are? Secondly, may we ask what he is doing

about local authorities such as the London borough of Wandsworth? That authority has frankly said that it has not the faintest intention of abiding by the guidelines and that it will go ahead fully with public expenditure and let the ratepayers jolly well get on with it.

Mr. Silkin: I understand that there has been a denial of the newspaper report concerning Wandsworth. I wish that there had been denial in respect of the statement made by the London borough of Barnet a few weeks ago. If a local authority decides to act selfishly and against the national interest, this can only be at the expense of other local authorities. I hope that the local authority associations will take note of this.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the expenditure plans of local authorities are long-term and that local authorities are now suffering from the foolish policies introduced by the Conservative Government, which involved high interest rates and the famous U-turn of 1972 when they sought to get local authorities to cut back on plans to which the Government had committed them?

Mr. Silkin: It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend made the most generous rate settlement in history. What we are saying to local authorities is that they may stick to last year's figure, plus inescapable commitments. This has generally been accepted throughout the country and by local authority associations as being not only fair but generous.

Mr. Stainton: The Secretary of State used an important expression about local authorities sticking to their side of the bargain. If those words mean anything, do they not throw a responsibility upon the Government to pursue such bargaining?

Mr. Silkin: I do not deny that. It is absolutely right. The Government have said that for their part they will not force local authorities to increase expenditure where there should be no such increase. That has happened in the past.

Mr. Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply—and the right hon. Gentleman must agree with that—I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Wednesday of last week I raised with you the irksome question why it is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster never answers Questions. I pointed out that even if an hon. Member were to table a Question he would have difficulty in getting an answer because Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy follow an exhaustive list of Foreign Office Questions which usually contain twice as many as can be dealt with in the hour that we have available.
I was aware of the difficulty of tabling a Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy dealing with matters of North Sea oil profits and Finance for Industry. I have now been informed by the Table Office—I suspected that I would be so informed—that no Question can be tabled relating to the affairs with which the Chancellor of the Duchy is at present dealing. I have attempted to table a Question relating to his present talks with the American oil company leaders about the marginal profits arising from North Sea oil exploration. I am told by the Table Office that such a Question cannot be put to the Chancellor of the Duchy. What is more, there is no Question whatever that can be put to him relating to the affairs with which he is currently dealing.
It was suggested to me that the Chancellor of the Duchy will go through the present Parliament, dealing with all of these multifarious pieces of legislation and interference of one kind or another, and never have to answer a Question. We could reach the farcical situation in which, by devising 12 heraldic titles for themselves, the 12 most important members of the Cabinet could avoid answering Questions relating to their departmental affairs.
I suggest that this is not a trivial matter. This is a question of a man who, in logic and in practice, has one of the most important Departments in this Government. The fact is that not only I, but any other Member of this House, from whatever side is unable to table a Question dealing with the affairs for which the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. This is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member must use his influence with the Patronage Secretary on this matter. [Laughter.] I am quite serious. How the Government arrange their business—

Mr. Skinner: You did not say that when they dragged you to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: How the Government arrange their business and what Minister answers for what, and how, is not a matter for the Chair at all. No doubt what the hon. Member has said will be noted.

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): In view of the questions that were asked last week I will, with permission, make a statement on Cyprus.
During my recent visit to the United States, I had separate discussions on Cyprus with Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary General of the United Nations.
It is Her Majesty's Government's view that at present, and despite their slow progress, the talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash continue to provide the best chances of moving towards a settlement. The Government fully support these talks and hope that they will be pursued with a greater sense of urgency. A lasting settlement is most likely to be achieved if the Cypriots themselves agree upon the nature of a constitutional settlement. The present talks provide the people of Cyprus, of both communities, with an opportunity to do so.
Our policy remains based on active support for the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and of the General Assembly. I reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government will be ready to support any solution which is acceptable to both communities, and which maintains the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus. I also reaffirm that, if it is the wish of the parties that we should assist in wider negotiations to reach a settlement, we remain ready to do this or to help in any other forum.
The House is aware that the transfer to Turkey of the Turkish Cypriots from the Western Sovereign Base Area is now complete. Winter weather in the camp in the Western Sovereign Base Area had, as I saw for myself when I visited Akrotiri briefly on my way to Africa, brought about a significant worsening in the conditions of these unfortunate refugees. It would have been inhumane to withhold agreement any longer. I was not willing to use these people as political pawns and I refute the suggestion that, by this decision, Her Majesty's Government have shown some change in our policy towards Cyprus. Some have even used it to argue that we support partition. This is untrue.
I remain very conscious of the plight of the Greek Cypriot refugees. We shall continue to do whatever we can to help them. The British Government have not forgotten that many Greek Cypriots have lost their homes and livelihoods. By virtue of their numbers alone, the Greek Cypriots' problems are much greater. Britain has given over £1·5 million in relief aid to Cyprus, but no lasting solution can be found until there has been a political settlement. Nor have we forgotten the many British subjects who have suffered in Cyprus, whether by loss of life or injury, or by damage or loss of property. We are trying to obtain compensation for them and to protect their interests in every way we can.
Humanitarian considerations equally call for a move by Turkey to help the Greek Cypriot refugees. I understand that a proposal has been made that some 5,000 Greek Cypriots should be allowed to return to their homes in an area round Athienou. It remains to be seen whether the conditions for their return can be accepted by the Greek Cypriots, as the villages concerned are behind the Turkish lines.
It would be wrong to assume too quickly that these talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash are irrevocably deadlocked at any one point. The problems of Cyprus have never been easy to solve and a long-term settlement of the many humanitarian, social and political problems of the Republic as a whole can be found only by some agreement between the two communities themselves.
I am in continuing contact with Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash as well as with the Greek and Turkish Governments and have urged on all of them the need for serious bilateral negotiations to be pursued without delay.

Mr. Rippon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which reflects the growing anxieties which have been expressed on both sides of the House about the situation in Cyprus. I welcome his acknowledgement of the plight of the Greek Cypriot refugees and also accept what he said about the rightness of not using the Turkish Cypriot refugees as political pawns, but surely there were discussions with the Turkish Government about the action which they might take to relieve the situation.
As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the best hope is perhaps the talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, what effect does he think the Government's action, taken in the way it was, had upon the talks? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what initiatives the Government are taking to secure the implementation of the treaties of London and Zurich of 1960 in order to create arrangements which will guarantee—and I am sure that this is the policy of both sides of the House—the political independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus?
Finally, in view of the importance of this matter and the interest in it displayed on both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consult and give his support to any proposals which may be made for an early debate?

Mr. Callaghan: There has been continuing discussion with the Turkish Government, as with the Greek Government, about the position of 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees who have been displaced from their homes. Alas, they are not within our jurisdiction or our territory, and, therefore, we can only make representations on their behalf.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what effect the evacuation of the Turkish refugees had on the talks. I could only assume that it should make the Turks rather more accommodating in helping some of the Greek refugees. I did not make it a bargain because this is not a subject to bargain about, but the Turkish Government are well aware of my attitude. Indeed, it is the attitude of the


United States Secretary of State. Both of us have made continuing representations.
We are anxious to play our part in the London and Zurich agreements when we think that the Clerides-Denktash talks cannot be carried any further. Although they seem to be in a position, I regret to say, of near stalemate, I do not think that we could usefully intervene in those discussions. We are watching the situation literally day by day; it is a continuous review.
The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I shall always be willing to account for myself to the House when I am allowed to return to this country from time to time.

Mr. Russell Johnson: Many people will congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his clear and unequivocal rejection of partition, because partition would certainly lead to a continuing foreign, non-Cypriot presence in Cyprus, which would not be for the good.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not use the Turkish Cypriot refugees in Akrotiri as political pawns. Although indubitably he made an extremely honourable decision, does he agree that it appeared to be a change of policy and, therefore, was made to appear as if this country yielded to Turkish pressure? Does he agree that the situation is fairly dangerous? There is a real danger of deadlock. There is the question of the Turkish attitude to Congress and the archbishop's apparent enthusiasm for the Soviet proposal for an international conference.
What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have to bring a new moment-tum to the talks? In particular, for example, is it true that the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers will meet in Brussels with Dr. Kissinger in the next 10 days? If so, are we to be involved?

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to repeat that not only do the British Government rule out partition as being a solution which would help but in my conversations in Geneva and subsequently with them the Turkish and Greek Foreign Ministers said that they rule out partition as an effective solution for the problems

of Cyprus. I hope that that is still their policy.
On the question of the refugees, I was conscious that I should appear to be succumbing to pressure from someone. But this was a no-win situation. If I had resisted the evacuation of the refugees I should have been told that I was holding them as political hostages. Therefore, I had to take the decision which I thought was right, and, having seen the conditions for myself, despite the misrepresentations, I still think that it was the right thing to do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation in the island is fraught with danger and we must all be careful about the way in which we approach it.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in indicating that in my talks with Dr. Kissinger it was agreed that he would meet in Brussels the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey. I shall not be personally associated with that, but there will be representation in Brussels at that time. I hope to have a very early meeting with Dr. Kissinger immediately after my return from Moscow in about 10 days' time, when we shall be able, I hope, again to concert our policies.

Mr. Atkinson: Although my right hon. Friend could not have resisted the evacuation of the Turkish refugees, he could have prevented the Turkish Government from resettling them in the northern territories of the island. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] In the ways which have been suggested. I hope that the House will have a chance of debating some of these matters, which may prevent exacerbating the situation.
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his attitude on the question of non-intervention in the Clerides-Denktash talks? Does he agree that it will be virtually impossible to achieve a political settlement and a peaceful solution in the talks if they are based on the concept of ethnic separation and geographical partition? Therefore, if federal government will not lead to a peaceful solution for the island, is it not time to consider recalling the Geneva Conference so that further elements can be introduced as a means of intervening in what must become a deadlock between the Cypriot negotiators?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend's analysis, which is a pessimistic one, may


turn out to be right because, as I said in my statement, the progress of the talks is extremely slow and I cannot pretend that I am satisfied with them. I remind the House that they began only on 14th January. But both sides are loth to move precisely because of the difficulty which my hon. Friend thinks I should try to overcome; namely, their fear of each other and desire for ethnic separation.
This is an intractable problem. If I thought that a return to Geneva would help, I should, subject to the views of the Turkish and Greek Governments, be happy to continue to discuss it. I have already made clear that I should be willing to assist in any forum, either there or in the United Nations, if the Government came to the conclusion that that would be helpful.
However, the talks in Cyprus are going on under the chairmanship of the United Nations, and Mr. Weckmann is the United Nations representative there. When I talked with Dr. Waldheim last Saturday, we discussed a formal intervention by the United Nations. We shall keep the idea in mind, but the timing is not just yet.

Mr. Spicer: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the implications of this matter go very much wider and that we must all be very disturbed to hear today of the possibility of the Turks, at least temporarily, withdrawing their forces from NATO? Therefore, I wonder what steps the NATO Council is taking to involve itself in this matter.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the last 20 years the Turkish-Cypriot minority have behaved in a most exemplary fashion, often under extreme provocation—for example, during the EOKA troubles, in 1963, and again in 1974, when the final intervention took place. The same applies—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees—to the Turkish Government. Their position in 1963, in particular, was extremely difficult. At a time when there were pressures on them to intervene with military force they did not do so. The circumstances in 1974 virtually forced them into that position, and we should bear that in mind.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think I can debate those issues with the hon. Gentleman.

I was informed shortly before coming to the House—and I have had no opportunity to check it—that the Turkish Prime Minister has said that Turkey has no intention of withdrawing from the military side of NATO. As to the other issues, this problem, as many others, has a great deal of history, and on the whole, if I have any influence, I would prefer to get the communities to see how they can live together in future, rather than apportion praise or blame for the past.

Mr. Faulds: Has Mr. Clerides or Mr. Denktash made representations to Her Majesty's Government about the unacceptability of arrangements for the use of the sovereign bases in Cyprus by the Americans? Is my right hon. Friend aware how dangerous such arrangements would be to our relations with the Arab countries?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not aware of any such arrangements or proposals. None has been made to me.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government propose to assist in exploring the possibility put forward by Mr. Denktash of the internationalisation of Nicosia airport and its administration by a neutral administrator? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Turkish Government have yet made any definitive response in the context of compensation for damage suffered by British nationals and whether in principle they accept liability subject to proof of damage and quantum?

Mr. Callaghan: When I had my discussion with Dr. Waldheim last Saturday he had put forward an ingenious proposal for handling the administration of Nicosia airport, but I have not yet been informed whether it has been accepted. That decision is now with the Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders. I have not had any response from the Turkish Government on the question of compensation and liability. There is an office to which claimants are directed, which I believe is in the Ministry of Finance—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes, I will give him particulars—where people can register their claims, but so far there has been no admission of liability.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I accept my right hon. Friend's concern, which we all share, for the distress of all the refugees and his wise decision on humanitarian grounds to evacuate the Turkish Cypriots from Episkopi. Is not the primary concern of the British Government to look after those refugees who are in the sovereign base areas and to seek to get them resettled as quickly as possible in view of the criticisms and difficulties which face the British Government? What about the new section of Famagusta which is virtually a ghost town? Could we not put pressure on the Turkish Government to relax military operations there and allow the Greek Cypriots to get back into the houses?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not believe that there are any refugees in the western sovereign base area, but there are in the eastern sovereign base area of Famagusta. I wish that part of it would be released so that Greek Cypriot refugees could return. The Turkish administration is in no doubt about the views of Her Majesty's Government and others on this matter.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that up to a few days before the Government made the welcome announcement that the Turks would be allowed to go where they wanted, as can any other refugees. I received letters saying that that was impossible on political grounds because it would interfere with political arrangements? The letters were not confidential. I commend on humane grounds what the right hon. Gentleman said, but will he confirm that under international law we have no power to keep people anywhere against their will should they wish to go somewhere else once they have become refugees in our base? I completely support what the right hon. Gentleman said about partition. Does he not agree that the only way to prevent de facto partition is for both sides to get together and hammer out a federal solution?

Mr. Callaghan: It is true that we had no right to hold any refugees. The difficulty was that they could not go back to their own homes. I must confess that I modified my view between August and February. At the start I hoped that Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides would move fast enough to enable the problem of the

refugees—whether Greek or Turkish—to be solved. It became clear that that was not to be, and I had to intervene when I saw the conditions under which the refugees were living. Of course, we have no right to determine where they should go once we have taken the decision that they should be free to leave the area. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to express an opinion at this stage about constitutional arrangements. Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash should get down to this problem as soon as they can and decide on what basis they propose to live together, having excluded—as both have done—the idea of partition.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the commander and the troops of the United Nations forces have a clear mandate as to their rôle? Does he agree that, whereas previously they had a quasi-police function between two indigenous communities, they are now faced with a major invading army and their rôle in that situation must be different? Are they clear about this?

Mr. Callaghan: There have been discussions about the nature of their mandate, but I cannot answer that question offhand. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will try to give him a detailed answer.

Sir John Rodgers: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement. I was in Cyprus three weeks ago and had talks with Mr. Clerides, Mr. Denktash and Archbishop Makarios. It was generally agreed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the best hope of progress was talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, and that was agreed by the archbishop. Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on why there is a deadlock in the talks? Progress was made rapidly at one stage but there now seems to be deadlock. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the Turks to release Famagusta so that 60,000 Greek Cypriots can return to the town? Will he express an opinion on whether action by the American Government in withdrawing arms aid to Turkey will help or hinder a possible solution?

Mr. Callaghan: In reply to the last part of the question, that is a matter between the United States and Turkey, and I do not think it would be helpful,


or indeed proper, for me to express a view on something that is not my responsibility.
As to why the talks have been held up, there has been a dispute about Nicosia airport, which was referred to earlier in this exchange, and that has not been settled. There has been no serious discussion yet on the future constitution. The question of the refugees has reached the stage where there have been discussions about Famagusta, without agreement to open up the port, and there has been the proposal that 5,000 Greek refugees should return behind the Turkish lines, which on the face of it is not very promising given the degree of suspicion between the two communities.
Our powers in this matter are limited unless the House wishes me to embark upon a course of action that would bring down on my head severe criticism. We are confined to making representations and making our position clear. If I am cautious in what I say publicly in the House, that should not necessarily be taken as the degree of caution I exercise in private conversation. Those concerned are aware of our anxiety and our feelings that what it is right to do should be done, and I will continue in that way.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I have today published a third discussion paper in the series leading up to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention which is to consider
what provision for the Government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
This third discussion paper covers the sharing of responsibility in government, describes the present structure of government in Northern Ireland including local government and public bodies, identifies some of the main features of possible future patterns of government, and draws attention to how some of these matters have been arranged in other countries which have community problems.
I would remind the House that the Constitutional Convention is entirely a forum for the people of Northern Ireland. It lays on them the task of recommending what form of government is likely to command the most widespread acceptance there. It offers the opportunity for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to consider what system of government by consent will prove workable in a society divided as it is in Northern Ireland. It will be for those representatives to come together for Northern Ireland and put their views to the Government and to this House for decision.
I would add this. All experience goes to show that no system of government will work unless there is widespread and genuine participation in it. I re-emphasise what I have said before; namely, that
the direction of public affairs can and must be shared by those from all parts of the community who are concerned for the good of all the people in Northern Ireland. What form this sharing and partnership could best take to gain widespread acceptance will be a matter for the Convention to discuss".
I shall be announcing the name of the chairman in due course.
I think the House will also wish to know of developments since my statement on 14th January. The policy I then outlined contained the elements which could bring an end to violence and set in motion a process of discussion. I sought to get away from the daily catalogue of violence and open the door to a new situation in which discussions and political activity could take place in a constructive and peaceful atmosphere. I also sought to bring about progressively a change in the rôle and commitments of the Army and said that if there were a genuine and sustained cessation of violence I would gradually release all detainees.
These remain the Government's aims.
I also said that I would continue to welcome constructive discussion with members of the prorogued Assembly and that my officials have been, and are, available to hear the views of those in Northern Ireland who have something to contribute to the solution of its problems, including those organisations which were deproscribed by me in May last year and which are free to take part in genuine political activity within the law.
Ministers have had meetings with elected representatives both at Westminster and in Northern Ireland to discuss not only matters arising from my statement but also the economic and employment situation in Northern Ireland, which is a matter of major concern to me and should be to all.
My officials have had a number of meetings with various organisations to follow up the statement I made to this House and the publication of the Gardiner Report. There have been a number of meetings with the Provisional Sinn Fein. I wanted to ensure that the Government's policy was clearly understood. Indeed, it would have been quite wrong if I had not arranged for the Government's views to be fully explained and clarified. The future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. There is no question of bartering their future away. I should make it clear that I have received indications that the Government's policy was not being understood and also that there was a continued interest in trying to bring under control what has now become worrying but sporadic violence.
My officials have been under very clear instructions to explain the Government's policy and to outline and clarify the arrangements that might be made to ensure that any cease-fire did not break down. Explanation has been the key to the meetings. The difficulties in communicating and explaining carefully and fully the Government's policy, not only to the Provisional Sinn Fein but also to other organisations, are very considerable. These difficulties have not been made any the less by rumour and speculation, much of which has been both untrue and unhelpful.
The Government's policy in relation to violence itself is clear. It is that the actions of the security forces will be related to the level of activity that might occur.
The security forces will do their utmost to bring criminals to justice before the courts, and they are having very considerable success. In the past few days, 34 people have been charged with serious offences, five with murder and two with attempted murder. Nearly a quarter of a ton of explosives have been seized and about half the explosive devices placed

have been neutralised by Army technical officers. I cannot accept a situation where lives are at risk through failure to deal with a resumption of violence and sectarian murders. I have, therefore, in relation to acts of recent violence, signed seven interim custody orders during the past few days.
The situation in Northern Ireland is both more fluid and much less clear-cut than has been the case for a long time. There is a different attitude in all sections of the community.
People want to see an end to violence, but they want this to be a genuine, and not a temporary, change in the situation. My duty is clear. I must find out whether there can be a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, but equally I must deal with continuing violence from wherever it comes. I shall do both.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and hon. Members will want to read the third discussion paper with great care. It is a useful document, and I do not think it is a harsh criticism to say that it contains nothing very startling.
The House is well aware that the right hon. Gentleman has had a difficult situation to handle in the last six weeks, and, if I may say so, he has handled it very well. Nobody wants to make his position any more difficult. Nevertheless, I am sure he will agree that there is an obvious danger if the meetings with the Sinn Fein go on and on.
In view of what the Secretary of State said about rumour and speculation, I wonder whether there is perhaps too much secrecy about these meetings. Would it perhaps clear the air if further meetings—if there are to be any more meetings—were rather more open?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say in what respects the Sinn Fein still misunderstands the Government's policy and in what respects further explanation is still necessary? We are all glad to learn of the successes of the security forces in the last few days. Will he say to what extent he believes that the IRA has been able to use this period to regroup and to move arms around? Will he assure us that the security forces have not been inhibited in any way in dealing with any regrouping and movement of arms? Finally, does he know


whether any of the recent violence has been centrally organised, and, if so, does he agree that this merely increases the resolve and determination of our people not to be intimidated by violence?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's initial remarks. The document which has been published today is in accord with the first two documents. When the Convention meets there will be problems in regard to arrangements and information. Those attending the Convention will find the facts usefully set out in the documents, including factual information about local government, area boards, and the problem of getting the community as a whole involved. The documents deal with important factual matters.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned secrecy. I think it right. I have thought a lot about the matter. It would not be right to say whom my officials have met. There have been meetings with the Provisional Sinn Fein and others on the other side of the community, but they have taken place in Northern Ireland and there has been no question about safe conduct. I think that indicates the nature of the meetings.
Perhaps I should say a word in clarification of what is meant by our policy. It would be easy to talk about a "genuine and sustained cessation of violence". The question is: what does the phrase mean practically? On these matters I am very much led by my security advisers. It is no good my pretending that four months' cease-fire in which arms and detonators are moved about, and in which there is regrouping constitutes any genuine and sustained cessation of violence. The fact that there is no noise looks as though there is not violence, but violence might be being prepared. We all know the kneecapping has been going on in various areas. I want to cover the whole situation because I must not allow myself to be taken in by the phrase "genuine and sustained cessation of violence". There are practical reasons why these matters should be looked at, even though they may be passed on second hand, because just to use the phrase "genuine and sustained cessation of violence" is not enough. I hope that I have clarified that

point. I am aware of the dangers. I am gratified by the support that I feel from all parts of the communities. In this situation, as in perhaps more difficult ones from a security point of view, I am also gratified by the firm support that I get from the security authorities.

Mr. Molyneaux: As the way would appear to be clear for the setting up of the Convention, may I ask the Secretary of State to do his best to arrange for the elections to be held before Easter in view of the obvious difficulties which would arise if they were to be held just prior to the EEC referendum?
Now that the right hon. Gentleman and his officials have taken great care to ensure that the Government's policy is understood by the Provisional Sinn Fein, may we take it that there will be no need for further meetings with the political arm of the IRA, bearing in mind the damaging effects of the rumours and untruths which inevitably surround such talks?

Mr. Rees: I am very much aware of the situation regarding the date. I shall have to announce the name of the chairman, and I hope to do that soon. I am aware, and will certainly take account, of the EEC referendum. It is most important to get the preparatory work done. It is not a question of merely explaining the policy side. It has been borne in on me by my security advisers that we must be clear about what is meant by "genuine, sustained cessation of violence". I am keen that the meaning of that phrase is explained and passed through, because it is an important anchor for all that I want to do. It must be clear for the benefit of the security forces particularly and people in general what I understand by that. Overall, I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who represents a large part of the community in Northern Ireland, that I understand the views and the fears of the community. Perhaps I understand them more now than ever I did. There are people in all parts of Ireland—I am not referring to the Church men—who like to give an indication that they are in the game, but the large number of people who are satisfying their amour propre in that way are not. Matters reached a pitch in Belfast where it seemed that everybody was negotiating


except me. I know who is helping me. Therefore, I know how to evaluate some of the stuff that is given to the Press.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is the overwhelming wish of the House that the initiative for the Constitutional Convention will be a success? Is he aware that the best service that could be rendered to him, having made a clear statement, would be for the communities in Northern Ireland not to read into it what was not said and to infer from that what was not also said? That has been one of the diseases in Northern Ireland with ministerial statements during the last 15 years. If it is any consolation, as an expatriate and half Irishman. I understood clearly what the right hon. Gentleman said and found myself in full support.
Does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that all sections of the community with which he has come into contact are prepared to support this initiative for elections to lead to a Constitutional Convention? There are those who are opposed to it or would boycott it. Will he at the appropriate time make clear who they are?
What are the conditions which have to be satisfied before the right hon. Gentleman is able to announce the date for the holding of those elections?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in wishing to represent and see represented all shades of opinion, he is merely giving effect, quite properly, to the views taken by Lord Kilbrandon in another context, on which we hope the Government will not have double standards?

Mr. Rees: On the last matter about Kilbrandon, the whole question of devolved government has emerged over many years going back to the days when the Liberal Party was in power. One factor regarding Northern Ireland which is not present in the two other parts of the United Kingdom is the split society there, culturally at least, which exists in a way that I had never imagined. It is a factor that we must take into account in the method that we are trying to follow for getting the views of the people of Northern Ireland. That was the reason for the Convention which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) often proposed to one of my predecessors.

I remember listening to him saying that it was up to the Government at Westminster at the end of the day to decide.
If Kilbrandon is talking of devolved government, it is not talking of the particular problems of Northern Ireland with its history and culture. Many sections in the community will play a part, and I am sure that the main political parties will play their part. The difficulty is that those who have been used to getting what they want by violence will find it extremely difficult to trust the ballot box. But I am sure that the major political parties will play their part. They can speak for themselves.
Regarding the holding of the elections and the conditions, I do not want to be put in the position that we were in, before, when a date was announced and, for a variety of reasons, it had to be postponed. I will give a month's notice. I want to feel that the people of Northern Ireland can make up their minds calmly about the kind of government that they want in that part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the more he talks, either directly or through officials, to as many interested bodies as possible in Northern Ireland and maintains that a diminution of violence is to be accepted, we should not be in too much of a hurry to bring such talks to an end? Will he tell us whether he and the security forces are able to distinguish between acts of violence which are obviously provisional IRA official acts, if one may call them that, and the acts of those who are loosely termed cowboys? Will he also tell us whether, because he has resorted again to ICOs, he will make an interim statement on that part of the Gardiner Committee's Report which refers to the problems of dealing with people interned in that manner?

Mr. Rees: The Gardiner Committee's Report is long, detailed and valuable. I am looking at it with the aid of my legal advisers. I will make a report on that aspect as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will recall that the report was clear that there was a place for detention, given the problems of Northern Ireland, and that the ending of it was a political matter. That is what I tried to indicate


on 14th January when I made my initial statement.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words about the diminution of violence. Of course that is right. But it must not be the ending of violence at any price. I must look at that matter very carefully. It is right that without violence people would not be driven back to their tribal homes—I say that in no derogatory sense—to which many of them belong.
Regarding distinguishing between acts of violence, I choose my words carefully and give the security advice that I have had. There is no doubt that during the cessation of violence—the cease-fire, not a truce—it was clear that it could be turned on and off. There are breakaway groups. It is sometimes not possible for me to be advised clearly on who is responsible for what. Even if we were to obtain a genuine cessation of violence, there might be more splinter groups, because people who have been used to using the gun for four or five years find it difficult to break away from that kind of activity.

Mr. Powell: Further on the Gardiner Report, does the Secretary of State recognise the urgency of an early announcement on the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee which are highly relevant to the current position? In that context will he consider the possibility of dealing, if necessary separately, with those recommendations which are uncontroversial and could be implemented quickly?

Mr. Rees: I promise to do that. My legal advisers are looking closely at the legal aspects of those parts which need an amendment of legislation. They need to look at that in detail. I should like to mention one other point underlying the Gardiner recommendations about prison administration and prison accommodation. I am faced, as was the previous administration, with poor prison accommodation for dealing with prisoners in the way in which we understand it should done over here. At the moment, my officials are, in a different context, going through planning appeals and so on with regard to the needs of the new prisons. People feel strongly when a prison is built in their area. As much as I need new prisons so that I can have a proper

policy, I cannot move in advance of the prison accommodation.

Mr. Fitt: I welcome this document in so far as it restates Government policy that the evolution of any future political structure in Northern Ireland must enjoy the support of both sections and communities in Northern Ireland.
On the question of negotiations which the Secretary of State has had with the elected representatives in Northern Ireland and with the political parties, can he give us any indication as to what is the attitude of those parties towards power sharing, participation and partnership in any future Government? Has any one of those parties or any number of those parties stated clearly that they will not take part in partnership in government with the minority in Northern Ireland?
From the discussions that the Secretary of State has had with the Sinn Fein, is the Secretary of State now in a position to say whether he has clarified once and for all what is its attitude to this Government? Will there be any further discussions? Does he recognise that the attitude of some of the major political parties in Northern Ireland towards non-acceptance of partnership in government is leading to a continuation of violence and is some sort of justification to the men of violence for carrying on with their campaign?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about Government policy.
With regard to the views of the elected representatives, my hon. Friend puts me in some difficulty, because I think it is for parties to speak for themselves rather than through me. As I read the feelings in the communities in recent weeks, my strong feeling is that those who will work for the good of a united Ireland, from whatever community they come, will do more for Northern Ireland in the long run than all the feuding and fighting that has gone on over 50 years. It is in that context of Northern Ireland that I say to my hon. Friend that I see the value of power sharing.
I have given my views with regard to the Siam Fein and the practical aspects of what might be at the end of the day a genuine cessation of violence. Those


practicalities concern the men of violence, and at second hand I presume that what my officials say gets through. Those are not subjects I talk about with the elected representatives.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming the Secretary of State's assurance that his decision when to start a general release of detainees must be governed by security advice, may I ask whether he thinks that there might be something to be said for fixing a definite period of time free of terrorism which must elapse before such a happy outcome can begin? After all, when we speak of playing cat and mouse it is very often the terrorist who plays cat and mouse—not the Secretary of State.

Mr. Rees: With regard to the question of cat-and-mouse bargaining, that is a game which I do not wish to play. That is why I said that everybody must be clear what is meant by "genuine sustained cessation of violence". I would not want to set a date, because we could have a period free of violence for a time when it looked on the surface as if all was well but if we went beneath it we should know that a great deal was going on.
On the question of the detainees and the cat-and-mouse game, in terms of the executive releases the republican candidates are not appearing before the commissioners at the moment. I do not want to be involved in a cat-and-mouse game. I have put forward Government policy as to how we can end it. That does not mean that people will not be released in between for other reasons, on both sides of the community fence, but not in the cat-and-mouse aspect. I have to take humanitarian aspects into account from time to time. However, overall the way to end detention is clear and simple. Let us stop violence in Northern Ireland. Let us stop the killing. There was the instance last week of the killing of the ATC boy of 16, whose father spoke so bravely after the death of his son and said he did not feel angry against anybody in the community. I could not have said that. Then there was the murder of the young boy down in Forkhill, who was blown up. In the face of that, for God's sake let us stop it, and then we can end detention. The killing of the RUC sergeant last week is an equally bad example.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that success in Northern Ireland is not measurable in any way in terms of the number of people gaoled or interned? Does he agree further that those people who see the military defeat of the IRA as being the final solution to the problem of Northern Ireland might just as well attempt to plough the ocean? Will he agree finally that the unbending of the majority community towards the minority in a democratic manner is the ultimate solution, and the only solution? To the extent that the Ulster Unionist Members help us towards that, they will thereby solve not only the problems of the minority in Northern Ireland but precisely their own problems as well.

Mr. Rees: I do not see the job that I do in any numerical way, not only with regard to detainees. It is not measurable. That is why I now say that I have a feeling that things are different, but I could not quantify it. I am looking not for victory but for peace. But I am not looking for a phoney peace. I am looking for a genuine, sustained cessation of violence. That is what I have to measure, not numerically. I have to measure what can be done to see that it is achieved. The best way for the communities in Northern Ireland to work together is to share power for the good of Northern Ireland. I believe that can be done after five years of what, in effect, is war.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that the Provisional Irish Republican Army has publicly announced that it was responsible for the dastardly shooting of the police sergeant and also for the serious wounding of another police constable? Will he confirm today that those policemen were coming from protection duty at the home of a prominent member of the SDLP? Will he also confirm that the SDLP is the one political party in Northern Ireland with elected representatives which does not support the police, and which at its conference refused a call to support the police? Will he tell us whether he was the member of the Government who authorised the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to say at that conference that the Government had made up their mind and would announce the release of 100 detainees?

Mr. Rees: With regard to the killing of the policeman, whoever was responsible


—whether directly, or authorised, or otherwise—it was a dastardly deed. The security forces do not need my permission—they know they have it—to seek out whoever did it and bring them to justice. That is true of any other killing in Northern Ireland, all of which—to use the words we have used so many times before—sows the seeds of hatred in the future.
With regard to support for the police, my responsibility is to the Government. I know of the changes that have taken place. I know that the only way to reduce the rôle of the Army is for the police to play a larger rôle. The police in Northern Ireland have my firm support. I speak for the Government. I cannot speak for anybody else.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether those men were on official duty. They had called recently at the home of a member of the SDLP. I know, in his individual case, how sad he feels about it, and I know of the support which he gives to the police, which is different from the political aspects about which I think the hon. Gentleman is talking.

BILL PRESENTED

AIR TRAVEL RESERVE FUND

Mr. Secretary Shore, supported by Mr. Secretary Callaghan, Mrs. Secretary Williams, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Dr. John Gilbert, Mr. Eric Deakins, and Mr. S. Clinton Davis presented a Bill to make provision for establishing a fund from which payments may be made in certain cases in respect of losses or liabilities incurred by customers of air travel organisers in consequence of the inability of the air travel organisers to meet their financial commitments in respect of certain descriptions of travel contracts, and for establishing an agency to hold, manage and apply the fund; to provide for requiring contributions from air travel organisers for the purposes of the fund; to provide for loans to the agency by the Secretary of State; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

ABOLITION OF PEERAGE

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide (except in respect of members of the Royal Family) for the extinction of all titles attaching peerages, for the cessation on death or statutory renunciation of all hereditary rights to attend as a Member of the House of Lords, and for the appointment of Senators as Members of the House, including the conversion of present life Peers.
This is a very modest measure, and it may be that some of my hon. Friends will say that it is too modest. When I sought on 11th June last year to introduce an almost identical measure, it was attacked by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on the spurious and irrelevant ground that it was a piece of creeping republicanism. Since any question of republicanism is an entirely separate question of great importance in itself, for the avoidance of doubt the wording of this Bill specifically excludes it from the scope of its operations. The Bill is not concerned with republicanism.
I should say straight away what else the Bill is not concerned with, because it is not concerned with the merits or demerits of the existence of a second Chamber. In past years, every time that anyone has attempted to investigate the peerage, his inquiries have been bedevilled by the overlapping but distinct question of whether there should be a second Chamber.
The object of this Bill is simply to expunge the archaic and ridiculous feudal titles which most Government supporters regard with derision if not complete indifference. In one minor respect it can be said to impinge on the question of a second Chamber, though not on the question of its existence, because it also seeks to remove the hereditary right to sit in the second Chamber so long as that second Chamber continues to exist.
No other modern society confers titles with the pretentious nomenclature of duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. In almost every case the creation of such titles lapsed no later than the end of the First World War. Some countries abandoned them many years before. To take a pertinent example, the French did so a long time before the 1914–18 war. What


is more, in the last few days President Giscard d'Estaing has said that he intends to abolish the titles which survive from French monarchical days when they were created in large numbers, some 1,500 of which are believed to survive.
It is clear that for a number of years there has been a tacit, unexpressed understanding between our two leading political parties that no further hereditary titles should be created, at any rate outside the scope of the Royal Family. None has been created since the Resignation Honours List of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, now Lord Home of Hirsel, and none was recommended during the time that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister.
That contrasts with the situation with regard to baronetcies after 1951. The House will recollect that between 1945 and 1951 the Attlee Government, most daringly, abandoned the creation of baronetcies. When the Conservatives returned to office in 1951, they resumed the creation of these titles as well as continuing to create hereditary titles on an ever-increasing scale which reached its climax during the Macmillan years. But, that apart, the system has been falling into gradual disuse.
No non-Royal dukes have been created since 1900, and even that one was for a person marrying into the Royal Family. No marquess has been created since 1936. Even in the case of Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors, who by tradition have been entitled on retirement to earldoms, since the Second World War there have been only two cases of each—Attlee and Eden, and Jowitt and Kilmuir. It is clear that this is a system which slowly has been dying.
The ridiculous situation is that, although the system of creating new peerages has, to all intents and purposes ceased, apart from these absurd life peerages, there are a sufficient number of them in existence to survive for many centuries. We are left with a situation where the peerage, far from becoming more democratic, year by year becomes less, and where its members are few enough in number to constitute an élite and not sufficient in number to be totally insignificant socially.
If this measure passed into law, one consequence would be that the political imbalance in the other place would be

redressed quickly. As title holders died off having no rights of inheritance to pass on, the balance that we have always known in this century of one party governing the House of Lords might reasonably be expected to alter.
I hope that my choice of the word "senator", which is in many ways of even greater antiquity than that of "peer", will not deter hon. Members from supporting my Bill. Although it is of greater antiquity, it has democratic connotations by virtue of its association with a number of elected chambers. As I have said already, my Bill has nothing to do with whether we want the continuance of another Chamber. For what it is worth, I feel that there is a marginal case for a wholly consultative Chamber with no powers save that of textual revision. But that is a matter of secondary importance.
As I have also said already, the Bill is not concerned with whether the monarchy shall continue to exist, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I have incorporated words to put that on one side. If any question concerning the monarchy arises, I cannot believe that so radical a constitutional departure could be made without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people, just as this Government will not make any change in the British constitution with regard to the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people.

Mr. John Stokes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Does the hon. Gentleman rise to oppose the motion?

Mr. Stokes: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not believe that such a root and branch reform as this Bill proposes should be introduced in this way by a Private Member.
More fundamentally, the Bill is objectionable in itself in that it seeks to make a violent, almost revolutionary, change in the constitution of this ancient Kingdom. The constitution has been refined and handed down to us over the centuries. It is in part monarchic, in part aristocratic and in part democratic. I know that in the end this House usually gets its own way and that the democratic principle is finally supreme. But the


checks and balances in our constitution are also important and play their part in our national life.
Like the monarchy, the House of Lords provides for continuity in British politics. With its roots in the distant past, it gives a much needed stability to our constitution. In an age where we have far too many changes, the Lords themselves, by their very presence, represent something abiding and unchanging.
There is a further problem in the Bill. Our present system of two-Chamber government works—and works so well as to be the envy of the world, and that is so, however much a few hon. Members opposite may laugh. Thousands of people come every year to see it at work. The Bill proposes the appointment of senators. The difficulties entailed in such a proposal were fully explored in 1968, when the matter was last debated at large in the House.
I believe that the strength of the Lords is due in part to the very illogicality of their selection—due perhaps to the workings of an inscrutable Providence, which produces a level of competence among hereditary peers which is quite as high as, and is often higher than, in this place, where we all arrive by a somewhat different route.
The Bill would have the effect of further isolating the monarchy, and in this connection I deplore the fact that since 1964 no further hereditary peerages have been created. Whatever the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr Lee) may have said, this realm is not a republic and the hereditary peers support the hereditary monarchy. We must not make the mistake in this House of thinking that we are the only popular people. The English people love a lord and have a great love for the other place.
The great virtue of the other place—or at least of those who entered it because their fathers were there before them—is that they were trained for the position for an early age. They were born to it, and they bear its responsibilities gladly,

both in peace and in war, where their record is second to none. They never have to play to the gallery but can speak their minds fully—and that is important in what is otherwise an almost wholly democratic society, dominated by the media and obsessed with the trivial, the trendy and the so-callecl progressive.

I believe that the ordinary people whom we in this House claim to represent still look up to the aristocracy of this nation and consider them a vital part of our constitution. I believe that the age of chivalry is not dead. The Lords are considered honest, brave and true, and many ordinary people would prefer to be ruled by a 14th earl than by a 14th Mr. So-and-so. There is no feeling whatever of Watergate about the Lords. They provide colour and pageantry, and remind us of our glorious past in this somewhat drab epoch. Their close association is with the land, and people like to see estates passing from father to son.

It is said that we live in the age of the common man, and those who hear this debate may feel like echoing that. The Bill would make us commoner still. The strength of this country lies in our traditions and in our high standards, and even hon. Members opposite, who may laugh now, if they by some extraordinary turn of fortune's wheel are moved to the other place, quickly develop a mellowness and independence which go hand in hand with their new status and privileges.

Finally, I believe that this Bill would upset the balance of the constitution, would deprive the nation of the unstinted services of a valuable section of our society, and would make a sudden change which is neither necessary nor desired. I hope, therefore, that the House will deny leave for the Bill to be brought in.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 168.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[4.45 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Atkinson, Norman
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Peter
Bates, Alf
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Albert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)




Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Canavan, Dennis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Crawford, Douglas
Judd, Frank
Sillars, James


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John
Stallard, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, George


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tomlinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Newsns, Stanley
Ward, Michael


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkins, David


Golding, John
Ovenden, John
Watkinson, John


Gould, Bryan
Padley, Walter
Watt, Hamish


Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Welsh, Andrew


Grant, John (Islington C)
Pardoe, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grocott, Bruce
Park, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hardy, Peter
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hatton, Frank
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Henderson, Douglas
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hooson, Emlyn
Price, William (Rugby)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Reid, George
Mr. Gwilym Roberts and


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Eddie Loyden.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hayhoe, Barney


Aitken, Jonathan
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Higgins, Terence L.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hordern, Peter


Baker, Kenneth
Drayson, Burnaby
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Durant, Tony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bell, Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torboy)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Benyon, W.
Elliott, Sir William
James, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fell, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fisher, Sir Nigel
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Budgen, Nick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
Luce, Richard


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clegg, Walter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McCrindle, Robert


Cockcroft, John
Grist, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Cope, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Corrie, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marten, Neil


Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John
Mather, Carol


Critchley, Julian
Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald







Mawby, Ray
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stainton, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moate, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Molyneaux, James
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Ridsdale, Julian
Townsend, Cyril D.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Morgan, Geraint
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wakeham, John


Mudd, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Neave, Airey
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Nelson, Anthony
Sainsbury, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Normanton, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Onslow, Cranley
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shepherd, Colin
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Paisley, Rev Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Younger, Hon George


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Michael Brotherton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I observe that no one declared an interest in that discussion.

OREDRS OF THE DAY

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

LIMITATION OF RENT INCREASES UNDER RENT AGREEMENT WHERE NO RENT IS REGISTERED FOR DWELLING-HOUSE UNDER REGULATED TENANCY

' .—(1) Where no rent is registered for a dwelling-house under a regulated tenancy (whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act), the rent payable in any contractual period beginning after such commencement may not be increased, by virtue of any rent agreement (whether made before or after such commencement), above the appropriate maximum amount specified in this section.

(2) In the case of any rent agreement which took effect before the commencement of this Act, the maximum amount to which the rent may be increased in terms of subsection (1) above is, for a rental period which begins—

(a) during the year beginning with the commencement of this Act, or
(b) during a subsequent year beginning with an anniversary of such commencement,

the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before the relevant year referred to in head (a) or (b) above, was payable by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment, plus £1·50 per week.

(3) In the case of any rent agreement which takes effect on or after the commencement of this Act, the maximum amount to which the rent may be increased in terms of subsection (1) above is, for a rental period which begins—

(a) during the first year of the period beginning with the date when the rent agreement takes effect, or
(b) during a subsequent year beginning with an anniversary of that date,

the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before the relevant year referred to in head (a) or (b) above, was payable by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment, plus £1·50 per week.

(4) There shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section such part of any increase of rent (in a case where any rates in respect of the dwelling-house are borne by the landlord) as corresponds to any increase in the rates so borne, ascertained in accordance with Schedule 4 to the 1971 Act.

(5) Any rent agreement made before or after the commencement of this Act which purports to increase the rent payable thereunder at any

time above that permitted at that time under this section shall have effect to increase the rent to the extent so permitted but no further.

(6) Paragraph 6A of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order substitute, for the sum of £1·50 mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) above, a sum other than that sum.

(8) An order under subsection (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under that subsection.

(9) In this section, "rent agreement" means a rent agreement with a tenant having security of tenure within the meaning of section 42(1) of the 1972 Act, and, unless the context otherwise requires, any expression used in this section which is also used in Part III or IV of the 1971 Act shall have the same meaning as in those Parts.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It will be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 25 and 27.

Mr. Brown: Now that we have ensured that the aristocracy can sleep easy tonight, perhaps we can get on with this important business.
The new clause is lengthy, but it sets out a simple proposition. It and the amendments grouped with it are connected by the principle that rents in the private sector should not be permitted to rise by more than £1·50 per week in any year. The new clause applies this limit to rent agreements and the new sub-paragraph (4) which Amendment No. 17 would add to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 applies it to registered rents which are being phased. There is one small difference between the two categories—where a registered rent is being paid, the service element is not to count as part of the increase, in the same way that it is discounted when the amount of each phased increase is calculated. This cannot be applied to rent agreements because no such separate amount is identified in their case.
The amendments also give the Secretary of State power to vary the amount of the maximum increase. It is clearly possible that inflation over the next few years might make it necessary to alter the present figure of £1·50 to keep it in line with changing money values.
There are two issues involved in this group of amendments—the need for a maximum limit on rent increases; and the level at which that maximum should be set. We need a maximum limit because, as a result of the automatic decontrol programme begun by the 1972 Act, several thousand controlled tenancies have had fair rents registered. It is inevitable that fair rents will in some cases be very much higher than rents which may not have changed very much since as long ago as 1914. It is only a fairly small percentage of rents—about 10 per cent. of registrations—which are increased by more than 75p per week with phasing applied but it is a problem which we cannot ignore.
Housing is a basic living cost and counter-inflationary measures must bite particularly hard on such unavoidable expenditure. The whole purpose of the phasing provisions of this Bill is to make sure that necessary rent increases take place as gradually as possible so that inflation is restrained as far as it can be. In most cases division of rent increases into three phased stages reduces them to a size which is compatible with this principle but we must have a second line of defence against inflation for the small percentage of cases which do face very substantial increases. The maximum increase proposed in these amendments is the most effective way of doing this.
5.0 p.m.
Rents will still be able to be reregistered after three years even if the previous registered rent had not been reached because of the maximum increase and a new round of phasing would allow the rent to move gradually to a fair rent without, in all probability, involving the maximum increase. Such cases would be likely only where overall increases of the order of £300 are due to be made.
Obviously, the level at which the maximum should be fixed is something on which everyone will have their own ideas and there can be no monopoly of

right in such a situation. A figure of £1·50 is indeed a high figure, but there are good reasons for its being so. It is designed to confer very real benefits on those tenants who—with or without stautory phasing operating—are faced with very large increases in rent; these increases are undoubtedly a counter-inflation concern. At the same time, it is pitched high enough not to make inroads into the progression of any significant numbers of rents towards fair rent levels; they therefore are consistent with our aim to move away from historic low rents and all their attendant problems.
As these amendments stand at present we are laying the ground for the gradual rise to a fair rents level for all regulated tenancies at the same time as conferring a very real benefit on those tenants who would otherwise face completely unacceptable rent increases. I hope therefore that the House will support me in proposing this new clause and associated amendments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the Minister has said that this is a simple point, he will accept that the amendments are rather complex. It is unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity of discussing them in Committee. We could have gone into them more thoroughly with more notice. However, I have a few questions about them.
First, the Minister mentioned that this is a clause which should bring some benefits to tenants. He mentioned that it covered both agreements and new registrations of rent. Will he indicate how many tenants might be affected by the new clause? I think that the number will probably be small, because obviously only where there is an increase over three years of £225 will this have any effect.
Second, why has the Minister introduced this provision in this Bill, when I understand that there has been no similar move in the Bill that relates to England and Wales? My understanding is that registrations in England and Wales tend to be higher than they have been in Scotland, although it is difficult to make any general comparison. There has been no indication that English rents have been registered at any lower level. Why was the move made here?
My third general question is whether the Minister does not feel that this new


clause might undermine the principle of the rent assessment committees' work and of fair rents, because the rent assessment committees, when meeting to determine rents, bear in mind what would be a fair return for landlords after a period of three years. It would appear that this would interfere with that.
As I have said, we have had little time to consider this proposal. Will the Minister give an undertaking—without commitment, of course—that between now and the next stage of the Bill, which will be its consideration by the House of Lords, he will give consideration to anomalies which might arise from the new clause? I say this because although it may sound fair and reasonable to impose a £1·50 per week limit on rent increases, much depends on where one starts from. If one starts from a rent of, say, £5 or £6 a week, that is obviously different from the case of starting from, say, 50p a week. Between now and the next stage of the Bill, will the Government consider whether there might not be a case for saying that the new clause should apply only to cases in which the fair rent or a reasonable percentage thereof has been established, or cases in which the rent paid was, say, £1 a week or £2 a week?
I think that there is a danger that the clause may produce a number of anomalies in our Scottish scene, where we have some rents at a relatively high level and some at a low level. Is the Minister willing to consider the anomalies which may arise as a result of the clause?

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I quite accept that this is a small group with which we are dealing. I should not like to put precise figures on it, but it is certainly about 100. Therefore, it is not a major problem but is confined to one group, of which we know, and possibly some of the higher rented houses in fairly good areas. So I am not over-stressing the value of it. Nevertheless, we do know that it will be helpful to a small group, and we think that it is an element of justice to put a maximum limit when we have set one in the council sector, albeit it is a different sum.
It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there is no comparable provision in the Bill that relates to England and Wales. It is to our credit that we have produced something that meets a prob-

lem in Scotland. I do not think that it is any less significant because of that.
I have had personal discussions, informally, with various people involved in operating rent assessment committees. I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that it will not upset the fair rents principle. We are not changing that in any way. The hon. Gentleman can take that as a firm assurance.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about an undertaking. I do not think that any Government or draftsman are ever completely confident that what they are trying to do does not produce anomalies or some effects that were not foreseen. I am reasonably confident that we have got this about right, but it would be totally wrong of me to suggest that we are always perfect. I do not say that. The hon. Gentleman may have a point. I am not saying that he has, because I have not examined his suggestion in any detail. If the hon. Gentleman would care to submit any details to me, I should certainly be willing to study them with interest. But I should not like to commit myself, because I am reasonably confident that we have got it about right. I do not undertake to give the hon. Gentleman any specific assurance that we intend to alter it at the House of Lords stage.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist giving any assurance, as has been suggested, that the maximum limit should be greater where the current rent is smaller. It may, indeed, be a valid point that there is a long way for a 50p rent to go before it reaches the fair rent level, but it is in precisely these cases that a tenant is faced with much greater percentage increases in the weekly rent.
We also have to remember that any tenant paying this kind of rent—by implication, still under rent control—is a tenant who has not changed his tenancy for the last 20 years or so, say, since 1957. The vast majority, therefore, are pensioners. Irrespective of any consideration of income, they are the very people who find it most difficult to adjust quickly to a sudden change in their rent payment, particularly when it reflects percentage increases of 300 per cent., 400 per cent., or 500 per cent. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not—I am sure that he will not—give any ground here towards


setting a higher maximum figure where the rent is lower.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that the figure was rather high. He indicated that there can be no consensus on the figure because every hon. Member will have his own idea of what the appropriate figure should be. He will, however, I am sure, concede that the figure he has chosen of £78 per annum is precisely double the figure of £39 per annum that is suggested in the Bill for the council or public sector.
How was it that the Government fixed on a figure so markedly different from that for the public sector? What equity is it that the private tenant should be faced with a maximum figure which is double that applicable to the council tenant, especially when there is a body of evidence before us which shows consistently that private tenants have significantly lower incomes than council tenants, as hon. Members opposite are fond of stressing?
I was also distressed to hear my hon. Friend say that the Government wanted to get away from the historic rent basis in the private sector. That is a little unfortunate, as we appear elsewhere in the Bill to be placing the council sector firmly on the historic rent basis. It will be difficult for those like myself who represent very few council tenants but a very large number of private tenants to explain to our constituents why the legal maximum figure in their case is double that for the council sector and why the figure for the council sector has been fixed on an historic rents basis whereas in their case it is thought fair and proper that we should as quickly as possible get away from that very basis.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is the other side of the argument. I did not say that I would give ground on the point that was raised. If I were to say now that I am flexible, that would be a mistake. As I am never too dogmatic, I said that if somebody suggests to me that we have done something which can stand being looked at again because it may give rise to anomalies, and if I were given evidence for that, I would look at it. I gave no assurance that I would take any action in another place.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has made is quite a good one. A maximum increase of £1·50 is a lot if we are talking in terms of a rent of £1 a week. However, the level could have been anything. Some might argue that it might have been £50 per year, some might say £100, some even less. It is just what we think, on balance, is reasonable.
I know that it is tempting to make a comparison between the private sector and the council sector, but there are so many factors that tend to make comparisons difficult. I referred to historic low rents and all their attendant problems. That is different from the phrase which tends to be used in terms of council tenants. I do not think that my hon. Friend should make too much of that phrase. In arriving at this figure we have borne in mind that rent allowances are available.
This is usually what happens when one tries to arrive at a fair figure. I am criticised by both sides. That encourages me in my belief that we have the figure about right. I hope that the House will accept the new clause and the related amendments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We should be grateful for small mercies. The Under-Secretary has made it clear that he is not giving a specific assurance but that, if there are any anomalies, he is willing to look at them before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. On that basis, I am happy to recommend my hon. Friends to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

NEW SYSTEM OF RENTS FOR PUBLIC SECTOR HOUSING

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4.
This is a drafting amendment. It is fairly insignificant and needs no further explanation.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister proposes to leave out the words:
have regard to the terms of their rebate scheme under section 15 of the 1972 Act".
Section 15(1) of the 1972 Act states:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to bring into operation not later than 1st October 1972 a scheme for granting to persons who occupy as their homes houses to which the local authority's housing revenue account relates and which are let to them by the local authority rebates from rent, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the scheme by reference to their needs and their resources.
The important words are:
by reference to their needs and their resources".
Surely local authorities should have regard to the needs and resources of those paying rent—for example, those who are disabled or persons on very low incomes who may not be able to afford the rent in question. Surely local authorities should not allow the cases of those in special need to go by default. Why does the Minister wish to omit these words?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is never wise to argue with a lawyer. However, this is still a drafting amendment. No particular category of people is involved. The amendment is designed to tidy up a possible misinterpretation of the 1972 Act, where the fact that there were rent rebates available could be used in determining rent levels.
This technical drafting amendment in no way affects the eligibility of any person or groups of persons—disabled or otherwise—as to how they will be treated under the rebate scheme.
I hope that with that technical explanation the amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 7, at end insert:
'(c) having regard to the general level of rents charged by comparable housing authorities and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and by new town development corporations'.
This is an important amendment which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. Because of the amendment the Minister has introduced, the Bill now provides

In determining standard rents for houses … a local authority shall … (b) subject to section 33 of the 1972 Act … take no account of the personal circumstances of tenants.
In other words, a local authority just has a general obligation to charge reasonable rents.
There is no indication of what the Government have in mind by "reasonable". We know from experience that there is no indication of how often rents should be reviewed. What does "from time to time" mean? We suggest that, to avoid a recurrence of a situation which developed last time, local authorities should be under an obligation in fixing rents to
have regard to the general level of rents charged by comparable housing authorities and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and by new town development corporations".
We want to avoid what was a most unjust situation which existed before we introduced our 1972 Act whereby the rent paid for a council house depended not on ability to pay, not on the category of house, but simply on the area one happened to live in. In an area such as Saltcoats the rents would be very low, in some cases absurdly low. In another area the rents would be very high. This was unreasonable and unfair.
It is only fair and reasonable that the rent should be determined first by the tenant's ability to pay—by his personal circumstances—and by the rate demands on other members of the community and not simply in accordance with the place where one lives.
There is no doubt that in the past the Government used the SSHA, which they largely control, and the new towns as pacesetters for rent increases. This brought great injustice on people who lived in new towns and on tenants of the SSHA. Although there have been considerable moves to try to equalise the situation, the last information we got about rents in local authority houses and in new towns and the SSHA was that on 28th November 1974 the average rent for a Scottish local authority house was £138 per annum; for the SSHA house it is £144 and for the new town house it is £193. This is the result of development in which new towns and the SSHA were used by Labour Governments as pacesetters for rents.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Surely the hon. Member would accept that there is a marked similarity between the rent figures for the SSHA and the local authority. The disparity is with the new town figure, and surely the hon. Member accepts that new town rents are that much higher because most of the houses have been built in the last decade and, therefore, to meet historic costs the rents must be high.

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Member thinks that historic costs are the basis of fixing rents he will support our 1972 Act because in it we tried to introduce the principle that pooled historic costs should be the basis for fixing rents and that there should be a gradation towards that. That is the principle of the Act which is being destroyed by the Bill. I am astonished to have an indication from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that he supports the principle of the 1972 Act.
We know exactly what will happen if we pass the Bill without making the amendment. It will mean that certain local authorities, for blatant political purposes—for vote catching—will keep rents artificially low. In other areas they will go up reasonable amounts and elsewhere they will probably be a bit higher.
Our 1972 Act was an attempt to take housing out of the political scene and to ensure that tenants moved to a situation of a pooled historic cost rent by gradual easy stages of 50p a week over a period of years. In some cases the rent for council houses has reached almost an economic level. All the scare stories about £6, £7 and £8 rents which would result from the Tory Act have been shown to be nonsense. Therefore, if we do not make the amendment the crazy situation will exist throughout Scotland of rents varying from one region and from one district council to another. This will be unfair and unjust, and it will simply permit the Labour Party to distort the housing market by using cheap rents as a simple means of buying votes.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I was astonished when I first read the amendment, but then it dawned on me that its object is not to bring rents on to an equal basis but to raise them. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) had introduced the amendment in

order to remedy some inequitable process I should be inclined to agree with him and appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the amendment.
It is not good enough to say that rents in new towns are £50 a year higher than the rents of local authority housing. The cost of building these houses is so much higher because of increasing interest rates and the general increase in costs in recent years. This does not happen in areas other than new towns where houses are being built now at increased cost. There is an equalisation process now going on. I would rather see an equalisation of house rents throughout Scotland, and merely because some people were unlucky enough to go into the house at a later date should not mean that they have to pay a higher rent.
I ask my hon. Friend to pay no regard to the amendment which seeks a substantial increase in local authority rents, but to take a sympathetic attitude to the view of hon. Members who, like me, represent new towns where tenants have to pay a much higher rent than tenants of comparable housing—and I stress the word "comparable"—in other parts of Scotland. I accept that my lion. Friend will not regard the amendment with any great favour, but will he consider creating an equalisation process so that rents in new towns are not markedly higher than local authority rents in other parts of Scotland?

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am interested in what the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said. He has asked his hon. Friend the Minister to bring in an equalisation scheme for cases where there appears to be a different charge for the same house in a different area. He is not willing to concede, however, the effect of this principle, which is the basis of the amendment. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the rent is determined not according to where one lives but according to which party is in control in that area. If the hon. Member for East Kilbride wants an equalisation grant he should support the amendment, the basis of which is that there should be an equality of rent for an equality of house whatever its age and position and whoever is in power in the area.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), and he is wrong. Even by looking at the housing statistics of local authorities it is sometimes difficult to determine their political flavour. I do not think that anyone could draw a specific conclusion on that score.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that I am not accepting, or asking the House to accept, the amendment. In general terms I agree that it is desirable that a comparable house should command round about a comparable rent. But there are qualifications. New towns do not have a rate subsidy and a rate contribution. Amenity and all the other environmental factors come into play. Provided we compare like with like, who can deny the logic and justice of my hon. Friend's argument? I therefore have sympathy with it.
The amendment is a new idea. It suggests that the system which operated before the 1972 Act did not work. There have been no representations from any local authority objecting to what we are proposing, which is to make that system the basis of the review of rents from time to time. There is, therefore, no support for the amendment from anywhere on the Scottish housing scene.
The amendment is an elegant testimony to the belief, which underlay the Opposition's approach to the Bill in Standing Committee, that local authorities cannot be trusted. We differ completely from the Opposition on that score, and we are proud to do so, especially when dealing with new authorities. They have not yet had an opportunity to perform but already the Conservatives have so little faith in them that they want to tie things up for those authorities tighter than we would wish.
5.30 p.m.
I cannot dispute that in the past a number of authorities failed to review rents as often as they might have done, or as the courts decided, should have done. It is a matter of debate whether they did any service to their tenants, because an undue preoccupation with low rents sometimes detracted from the need to improve standards and manage-

ment, matters of which we are all now aware and perhaps the new authorities will pay more attention to them. For these reasons, we should reject the amendment.
The amendment raises a specific question, which I do not want to dodge, about the SSHA and new town development corporations. The rents differential has been narrowed, and, hopefully, will continue to narrow.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Good.

Mr. Brown: It is all right for my hon. Friend to say "Good", but if that requires local authorities to raise their rents—

Dr. Miller: No.

Mr. Brown: The House will see the difficulty I am getting into.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that one way in which we could achieve this desirable objective is to reintroduce the 1972 Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act?

Mr. Brown: I have been long enough in this busines to be suspicious of simple solutions, especially when one of them is the 1972 Act. However, I concede that if it had eliminated all rate contributions and all housing deficits, as it was intended to do, we should ultimately have reached the position desired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. But that is not the way in which any of us would have chosen to arrive at that happy situation.
That is why we rely on the good sense of local authorities. In an inflationary period, I can see no hope of any authority—local authority, SSHA or new town—reducing rents. But I hope to be able to avoid giving the impression that any Government deliberately uses the SSHA or the new towns as trend-setters for increased rents. I have already said that in the current climate rents are likely to increase, but it is not fair to the SSHA or new town corporations deliberately to use them as whipping boys to encourage local authorities to do something.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is it possible for my hon. Friend to indicate to the new town development corporations that it is not incumbent on them continually to increase their rents in order to keep the differential


between their rents and local authority rents? There is no God-given reason why that differential should remain. It it is possible for the rents to equalise themselves, let it happen. But do not let the development corporations imagine that they must keep the difference between the rents of their houses and the local authority houses.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is taking me too far along the road that he wants to travel. I have said that I accept his proposition as a general principle. We must equally recognise that under the present system new towns are working under different constraints and financing arrangements. Therefore, I would not like to undermine the responsibilities that the House has placed on them. But I have made clear the direction in which I think we should proceed as a general principle.
Of course, there are differences. For example, some authorities will still have no SSHA houses or new town houses within their area of responsibility, so comparisons are difficult. Some other authorities could have practically no deficit in their housing account and still have relatively low rents. Saltcoats is a good example. [Laughter.] Conservative Members always laugh. I was going to pay a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), but I see that he is not here.
Although the rents in Saltcoats are relatively low, the local authority's housing costs are also relatively low, because the bulk of its building was done when costs were relatively low. It was fortunate and far-seeing enough to acquire a large amount of housing land in advance of need. Therefore, whatever arguments Conservative Members may put forward in attacking authorities such as Saltcoats, people such as ex-Provost Lambie and the Lambie dynasty must be complimented on their wisdom in buying up land in those days. Perhaps other authorities did not have the same opportunity, but we should accept that Saltcoats has done a good job.
We think that we have the measure about right. We believe that the interpretation of "reasonable" is understood, and that all the factors that hon. Members think should be taken into account will

be taken into account by the new district authorities.
The House should not accept the amendment, which merely introduces an additional complication without clarifying the duties that will be placed on local authorities.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I cannot let the occasion pass without commenting on the amendment, because the amendment, in the name of six Conservative Members, is to try to get rents increased. Drawing red herrings across the Notice Paper in the form of the SSHA and new towns will not do. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who represents a tremendous number of council tenants, should stand up and say so if he wants the rents increased, and should not cloak that desire in the type of amendment we have before us.
The hon. Gentleman knows, I know, and my hon. Friend the Minister knows, because we all represent Glasgow constituencies, that Glasgow has the highest average council house rent in Scotland. We also know from debates in Committee that the average rent of a comparable SSHA house is not as high. As my hon. Friend the Minister rightly says, there are one or two unusual examples, such as Saltcoats in Ayrshire, where, because of the foresight of people who were in command of the local authority in the past, who bought up land very cheaply and took on a building programme within their limits, the housing revenue account is much healthier than that of many larger authorities. But it is not fair to take one or two isolated examples.
Housing is now a district function. We gave a promise that we would put the control of rents back into local authorities. Freedom for local authorities was one of the planks of the Conservative platform in 1970, but they did not give freedom back to the authorities. They introduced the 1972 Act, which they know was one of the worst pieces of class-ridden legislation ever to pass through the House.

Mr. Fairbairn: When the hon. Gentleman uses the words "worst pieces of class-ridden legislation", do I understand him to mean that he greatly regrets that those less able to pay their rent were most helped?

Mr. McElhone: That is not the argument, because the Labour Government were the first Government to introduce subsidies. We have always been concerned about the inability of certain people to meet the rent levels of certain houses. [Interruption.] I give the hon. Gentleman the point on the allowances for private tenants. But this discussion centres on council tenants, and we are comparing their position with that of tenants of the new towns and the SSHA. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister takes the point.
I am glad that my hon. Friend advises us to reject the amendment, which is an attempt to make council house rents rise as fast as possible. That has always been the Tories' attitude. We have only to look at the figures which the Minister presented to each member of the Committee considering the Bill to see that council house rents have reached a dangerous level. If they continue to rise, good wage-earning families, virile young families, will move out of large council estates, because they will find it much cheaper to obtain a mortgage and buy a flat or a house.
We must be careful in the application. We should be concerned not only with rent levels but with the social composition of the large housing estates that we have created. We could end up with a situation in which those estates will be occupied by low-paid workers, the unemployed, the pensioners and the disabled. That would create a dangerous situation. The rent that is being paid is not the only criterion that we should bear in mind. As legislators we have a social as well as a fiscal responsibility.
The new district authorities also have regard to the difficulties that people face in paying council rents. That is why they have suggested weekly rents or other forms of paying their rents—for example—the Giro system. In my opinion the rent levels for council houses are extremely high. I think that I speak for admost all of the council tenants that I represent. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that the amendment is a sham and that he will reject it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say how much the average council tenant in his constituency

pays in rent and how much he pays in rates?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member for Cathcart knows the figures as well as I do.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Then let the hon. Gentleman tell the House.

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman receives a copy of the Glasgow housing manager's report and the figures are available at the Table Office. I do not carry all the figures. I believe that the average rent was roughly £167. I accept that the rates are at a high level in Glagow, but that is not the point. The argument about the amendment is that in the opinion of the Conservative Opposition council rents are not high enough. That has always been the attitude of Conservative Members. They should come clean and tell the House that that is their attitude. I am glad that my hon. Friend has rejected the amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With respect to the Minister, we are not satisfied with his reply. I must say straight away to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) that he does not interpret our amendment as we would wish.

Mr. McElhone: Of course not. What does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) expect?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must make the point firmly that what we want is to have rents throughout Scotland which are, roughly speaking, comparable. We feel that if the amendment is not accepted that will not be the position. We are suggesting that there will be a feeling of injustice throughout Scotland if the Government pass legislation which causes certain areas to have large housing deficits owing to low rents while in other areas there will be no deficits because the rents are of a different level. I have mentioned that the average rent in Saltcoats in November 1973 was £66 whilst in Bishopbriggs it was £119. Anyone who transferred his home from Saltcoats to Bishopbriggs would find that his rent would nearly double overnight. We believe that that would cause a feeling of injustice and unfairness


to be felt by many people throughout Scotland.
We wish to avoid a situation in which some local authorities will be charging high rents and others very low rents.

Mr. McElhone: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Apart from other considerations, when comparing Saltcoats and Bishopbriggs it must be remembered that one area is obviously Conservative—that is the area in which the rents are high—and that the other area is Labour dominated. Surely the argument must be based on the housing revenue account. Anyone who has studied the Saltcoats housing revenue account over a number of years will have seen that it is in a much healthier position than many other like accounts. That is the main reason for the rents being low in Saltcoats.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know that for the current year £171·28p is the average annual rent in Glasgow. I suggest that in comparison with Saltcoats that is a high figure. I can well imagine the attitude of persons living in Saltcoats who might wish to transfer to Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is fair for persons living in Saltcoats to be charged one level of rent and those living in Glasgow to be charged a different level of rent, I suggest that that is not the view that will be taken by many people in Scotland.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making two entirely different points. I agree that there should be some kind of equalisation, but if he is trying to put forward the example of someone moving from Saltcoats to Bishopbriggs, finding

that he has to pay a higher rent and not liking the situation, and somebody moving from Bishopsbriggs to Salt-coats—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) has addressed the House earlier on this amendment. He may seek to ask a question but he cannot make a second and further point by way of a further intervention.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I am merely asking whether it is not the case that somebody moving from Bishopbriggs to Saltcoats will find great relief in the foresight of the people of Saltcoats.

5.45 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point must be made that it should not matter where a person lives in Scotland or where he goes to live. We believe that he should be charged approximately the same type of rent for living in the same type of house. We think that it is grossly unfair to have any form of situation which differs from that. That is why we are pressing the amendment.
On 28th November 1974 the average annual standard rent in Scotland as a whole was £138·20p. For new town development corporation houses the average was £193·68p and for Scottish Special Housing Association houses the average was £144·72p. We feel that that differential is much too wide and that no harm can possibly come from comparing the figures.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 241.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[5.46 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, Burnaby


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dykes, Hugh


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Benyon, W.
Clegg, Walter
Fell, Anthony


Biffen, John
Cockcroft, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Braine, Sir Bernard
Corrie, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brotherton, Michael
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crowder, F. P.
Gorst, John


Buck, Antony
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutaford)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Budgen, Nick
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bulmer, Esmond
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Griffiths, Eldon




Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Hall, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Silvester, Fred


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Higgins, Terence L
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sproat, Iain


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Stainton, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey
Stanley, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Hunt, John
Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


James, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jessel, Toby
Paisley, Rev Ian
Townsend, Cyril D.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Parkinson, Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wakeham, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Lane, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Warren, Kenneth


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wells, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Hon George


McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Hamish Gray and


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Archer, Peter
Delargy, Hugh
Hatton, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Ashton, Joe
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Doig, Peter
Henderson, Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hooson, Emlyn


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Dunn, James A.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bates, Alf
Dunnett, Jack
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
John, Brynmor


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Buchanan, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Campbell, Ian
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Cartwright, John
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kelley, Richard


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Freud, Clement
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
George, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Lamborn, Harry


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gould, Bryan
Lee, John


Crawford, Douglas
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cronin, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lipton, Marcus


Dalyell, Tam
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Litterick, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Luard, Evan


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamling, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)







Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Phipps, Dr Colin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


MacCormick, Iain
Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thompson, George


Mackenzie, Gregor
Reid, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thorpe, Rt Kon Jeremy (N Devon)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James


McNamara, Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomlinson, John


Madden, Max
Roderick, Caerwyn
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marquand, David
Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Michael


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Watkinson, John


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson, Neville
Watt, Hamish


Millan, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian
Weitzman, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Selby, Harry
Wellbeloved, James


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)
Whitlock, William


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Newens, Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Noble, Mike
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Small, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ovenden, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Pardoe, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Parker, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger
Mr. David Stoddart and


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin
Mr. James Hamilton.


Perry, Ernest
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

DIRECT PAYMENT OF RENT

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 5, leave out Clause 5.
In moving that Clause 5 be deleted from the Bill I say at once that I understand and share the concern which led to this clause being moved in Committee. I must also say, however, that it is essential that the clause should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. As hon. Members would expect, in the interval between the Committee proceedings and today I have met my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security to draw his attention to the clause and to seek his views. The clause has also been drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Lord Collison.
After these discussions I have to tell the House that I am reinforced in my view that the clause is technically deficient—I know that is never a good argument—and impracticable in that it

aims to provide an "on request" type of service for beneficiaries without regard to whether they have difficulty in budgeting. Much more importantly, however, the clause is unnecessary in so far as it relates to people who fall behind with their rent.
To take the main point first, the clause is no longer necessary because of an important shift of emphasis in the approach by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the whole question of direct payment of rent. While in the past this has been regarded as an expedient to be adopted only when persuasion or other attempted remedies have failed, this is no longer the case. Guidance recently issued to Department of Health and Social Security offices, which make payments of supplementary benefit on behalf of the commission, will result in authorisation of direct payment where a tenant is persistently failing to pay rent at a much earlier stage than previously.
This is a significant change in emphasis and should serve to eliminate one of the most frequent difficulties encountered in the past when requests for direct payment were liable to be turned down until arrears reached substantial proportions.


The new guidelines will allow much greater flexibility and a greater area for discussion, so that it will become more a matter of management than of policy to see that the guidance is put into practice.
6.0 p.m.
There are detailed instructions in the code for the guidance of local offices. I have studied them, and, knowing something about the subject, I am satisfied that they provide a flexibility that did not exist before.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am aware of the guidelines which have been sent to the offices, but I am not sure about their interpretation. It has always been a problem to use compulsory powers to deduct rent payments from supplementary benefit recipients. However, I understand that they will be introduced only as a last resort, when all other efforts have failed. My information from social security people in my constituency is that they intend to go to great lengths to encourage people to pay their rent, to accept their responsibilities, to fulfil their obligations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he is intervening in a speech.

Mr. Dempsey: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an important point. I had to mention the background before asking my hon. Friend whether he is positive that the guidelines will be interpreted in the generous way he has indicated.

Mr. Brown: I can never be positive about anything in which there is a degree of flexibility. I should not have used that word. "Discretion" is the official word.
There has been a change in the guidelines given to local offices. On the one hand, there is a specific guideline to deal at a much earlier stage with beneficiaries who have rent arrears, while still leaving discretion to be exercised locally.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the figures which I gave him earlier today which showed that in Edinburgh there are 2,000 supplementary benefit claimants who owe, on average, about 12 weeks' rent and that only 260 of them are paying rent direct through supplementary benefits offices? Is he confident that the arrangement

which he has made with the DHSS and the assurances which he has been given by that Department will guarantee that these figures are brought much more closely in line with each other?

Mr. Brown: There have been discussions with officials of Edinburgh Corporation and the DHSS subsequent to the last letter which my hon. Friend received from the corporation. I think that Edinburgh Corporation will be reasonably satisfied, but that is a matter for my hon. Friend to check and perhaps advise me on if I am wrong There has been an increase in the number of direct payments, and, with the new instruction, I am sure that no technical barrier will exist if the case is made for increasing the number of direct payments.

Dr. M. S. Miller: When last May the East Kilbride and Stonehouse Development Corporation increased rents for some houses which were occupied by people on supplementary benefits a difficulty arose for some people because the extra amount was not available from the Department of Health and Social Security until they had incurred the debt for the extra rent which had to be paid. In other words, there was a time-lag during which they owed the money. Some elderly people, in particular, came to see about the matter. I thought that I had straightened it out with the development corporation and with the DHSS, but apparently that is not so.
It would be of great benefit if the Department of Health and Social Security could ensure that the extra amount of rent—indeed, the whole rent—was paid without the tenants, often elderly women, having to worry and sometimes even receiving letters saying that they are in arrears.

Mr. Brown: That is a slightly different point which my hon. Friend should take up with the Department of Health and Social Security. Presumably he is talking about cases in which direct payment has been accepted but there is an increase in rent or rates, or both, and a time-lag in increasing the allowance. I agree that such situations sometimes cause unnecessary alarm and concern. However, I am sure that that matter can be sorted out and explained to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend's constituents.
I confirm that the letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) sent me showed that there were 263 direct payments made in Edinburgh. Our latest information, which covers the last couple of weeks, is that the figure is up to 483.
The change in the regulations is not a minor change. Perhaps I did not do the point justice in Committee. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is conscious of the problem of housing associations which cater specially for one-parent families and other low income groups liable to experience particular difficulty in budgeting and has issued special instructions about these. This initiative has been warmly welcomed by the National Federation of Housing Associations.
We are expecting the report of the Morris Committee dealing with the relationship between social work and housing, but within its remit was a requirement to examine problems associated with the matter we have been considering. I sympathise with the views of hon. Members. I shall meet in the near future the Association of Housing Managers. I shall be putting this matter to the association, because the key to it is the use by housing managers of better and quicker methods for identifying people who are in arrears with their rent, or even identifying them before they fall into arrears.
I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister's explanation is not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) struck the nail on the head when he said that direct payments were made only in the last resort.
The Minister made clear that there were three criticisms. The first was that the clause was imperfectly worded. Imperfect wording can easily be straightened out. His second criticism was that the clause was impracticable. It is perfectly practicable to enlarge the Department of Health and Social Security and ensure that the civil servants render a service of the nature we advocate. It may be inconvenient for them to do it with their present staffing, but it is perfectly

practicable. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument in that respect was not convincing.
The third argument was that it was not necessary. It is extremely necessary, and I am reinforced in that belief by representations from three sources. The first source is Shelter, the Scottish campaign for the homeless. The second is the housing committee of Edinburgh Corporation, which has had its request turned down by the Secretary of State and has resorted to approaching Members of Parliament. The third source is the report of the Committee on One-Parent Families by Sir Morris Finer. The Minister mentioned the Morris Committee, but the Finer report deals with this matter on page 511 in recommendation No. 158 which states:
Where a tenant receiving supplementary benefit requests, with the support of the social services department or the housing authority or an appropriate voluntary organisation, the Supplementary Benefits Commission to pay the rent direct the application should normally be granted as a matter of course.
We are asking only that this should be done on request.
Recommendation No. 159 states:
Where the social services department and landlord, in the long-term interests of the tenant, ask for the rent to be paid direct there should be greater willingness on the part of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to do so.
I appreciate that the Civil Service may have applied great pressure on the Minister and said that this arrangement would be inconvenient, but there is a feeling growing up between social workers in Edinburgh Corporation and social workers in the Department of Health and Social Security. The corporation social workers feel that they are doing a lot of work which should be carried out by officials of the Department, especially in relation to the payment of energy charges. Rather than risk persons committing suicide or having to be taken into care, they feel that they must pay the energy charges on an emergency basis although they do not believe that within the strict definition of the statute they are entitled to do so.
This is a reasonable request which I ask the Minister to accept.

Mr. McElhone: I share a great deal of the concern which was expressed by


the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and I have a full power of attorney to speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The assurances given by the Minister go a long way towards meeting the reservations which were expressed in Committee, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has adopted similar procedures in days gone by.
The Minister was generous enough to say that perhaps he had not done justice to the point in Committee. He has responded generously. In the interval he has consulted Lord Collison and has had discussions with the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security. The situation in Edinburgh has improved substantially in the last two weeks. We are always as concerned about Edinburgh as we are about our own localities.
The assurances given by the Minister have gone a long way to meet the distressing problems. The Minister is aware of our concern, and I do not doubt that he himself has a genuine concern. His explanation has more than satisfied us.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said but I cannot take as charitable a view of it as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone). I am surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) saw fit to give a power of attorney to his colleague rather than give his own public confession of why, for reasons best known to himself and his colleagues, he supports the Government.
The Minister gave interesting details which we all welcome. No one disagrees with the added flexibility that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will apply. What I have been waiting to her and have not heard is any good reason why a tenant who wishes his rent to be paid directly by the Supplementary Benefits Commission should be refused that right.
It is desirable that flexibility should be applied, but the tenant is in no different position from any other person who chooses to have various sums deducted from his income before it reaches him. All hon. Members receive their salaries

after deductions for national insurance and pension contributions. We have no choice in the matter. The deductions are made partly because it is thought desirable to make them and partly to ensure that the payments are made. In addition, many members of the public, fearful of getting into arrears with insurance contributions, choose to have them deducted before the money reaches their pockets.
Will the Minister give us an explanation of his attitude, other than the inconvenience it might cause to one or two Government or public officials, which is not a good explanation when we are considering the public interest? Will he give a good reason why a tenant who chooses to ask for his rent to be paid directly should not be allowed to do so?
The argument that has been put forward in the past is that the tenant must bear the onus of meeting his own commitments, and we accept that. This request in no way indicates that the tenant is denying his commitments any more than an hon. Member who asks his bank to deduct money by standing order refuses to accept his commitments. If this method is convenient to the tenant, if it ensures that the landlord receives the rent and that the arrears disappear and do not reappear, on what basis does the Minister refuse to accept the method?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was not present in Committee when we discussed this matter and he cannot have read my magnificent contribution or he would not have gone over the same around. His is a typical middle-class approach: "Why should not we have the right to decide how the money should be paid?" It is not as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman claimed to take account of the right of the individual. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) skilfully disguise their patronising attitude which is that in the interests of the public purse we should take away the right of the individual to say "I shall decide how I shall spend my own money".
The argument may be put the other way. The next stage will be when the Morris Committee reports on electricity charges. It may be said that the people who are receiving supplementary benefit should have their bills paid direct. The


next suggestion will be that if they need clothes they should be Given chits which can be exchanged for clothes at the local store. Those people will end up with no money.

Mr. Hamish Gray: Quite right.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says, "Quite right"—

Mr. Gray: I did not say "Quite right" to the Minister's remark about people ending up with no money. What I said "Quite right" to was the suggestion that a person on social security benefits should have the responsibility to say that he would like to have his rent deducted from his social security payment. It is the Minister who is interfering with the right of the individual. We are trying to protect the right of the individual to do what he wants to do.

Mr. Brown: There is a genuine difference of opinion on the two sides of the House. I think I have expressed the overwhelming view of my hon. Friends. There are staffing problems in the Department, but that is not the main burden of the case. If the House wills something it is up to us to find the means to do it, but we must appreciate that there have been many changes in legislation which have laid burdens on the Department—for example, the Christmas bonus, and beef coupons for old-age pensioners. I should not like to see the matter go by without proper consultation through the DHSS with the staff concerned.

Mr. Rifkind: Does not the Minister accept that it will take much more time and cause more trouble for the Department if it considers each application and decides whether it is to be accepted or refused than if the Department accepts every application in which a tenant asks for such deductions to be made?

Mr. Brown: I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. The system works fairly well. Where there are guidelines, most of the cases fall within them. It is only in the odd case that discretion needs to be exercised.
Hon. Members who know anything about social security will realise that the system works reasonably well. The Finer

Report has been taken on board. That is partly the reason why there have been changes of coding and advice to local offices. I am confident that we do not need to have the clause in the Bill, and I hope that the House will agree to delete it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am bitterly disappointed with the Minister's remarks. He spoke about extending the guidelines, but the debate in Committee on this point was on the question not whether the guidelines should be extended but whether the principle should be accepted. The Minister must be aware that if this proposal cannot be undertaken in one year because of administrative difficulties, if the principle is accepted the Opposition—and, we hope, those Labour Members who supported us upstairs in Committee—will be glad to go along with the Minister in any proposal for the period to be increased to two, three or four years.
The Minister mentioned the Finer Report—a bulky document running to hundreds of pages. I ask the Minister to look at page 396. I hope the Minister will listen to what I am saying instead of making arrogant and stupid interventions—[Interruption.] Had the Minister taken part in the proceedings on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, he would understand why we take this attitude. However, if he looks at page 396 of the Finer Report, he will see that it says:
where the tenant, with the support of the social services department, or the housing authority … requests the Commission to pay the rent direct, the application should (other than in exceptional circumstances) be granted as a matter of course".
That is precisely the situation we want to arrive at.
The Minister was wrong in his comments about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind). There is no question of our adopting an arrogant or middle-class attitude, but we are deeply concerned that, because of the absence of this facility, which we seek to provide, many hundreds of families in Scotland will be penalised. Those families are undergoing agonising crises. Many are breaking up, and mothers are taking pills because many families find great difficulty in managing their affairs.
The Minister said that he would extend the guidelines, but I am concerned in assisting families who now face problems, and am very much interested in preventing such situations arising. The Minister must be aware of the figures published in Glasgow by the Castlemilk Interest Group showing an increase in the number of evictions for non-payment of rent. Every eviction involves human hardship and tragedy. The Minister must be aware that if this facility were introduced, it would go a long way towards preventing some of these problems arising, and would certainly help a large number of people who are in trouble.
Nobody underestimates the administrative difficulties. This proposal would mean creating work for the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the DHSS. However, if the right were automatic there would be no need to go through each case individually. We want to establish that at some future stage, when the administrative problems are overcome, the Government will accept the Finer Committee's recommendation on this point—a point supported by the Edinburgh Corporation and social workers in many parts of Scotland—namely, that every tenant on supplementary benefit and other benefits who wants his rent paid direct should be able to take advantage of such provision.
I was disappointed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) for we thought that we had his support—

Mr. Dempsey: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence of persons making such a request from the social security authorities, and of the request being refused?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I have. I can give the hon. Gentleman many examples. If he will contact the Castlemilk Interest Group, it will give him the evidence. Furthermore, the Family Service Unit in Glasgow has evidence of such refusals.
We are interested in this being an automatic right. We do not want to lay

down a time scale. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park and any member of the SNP who has a mandate to speak on this matter will reconsider the position. If this provision goes to the House of Lords the Government will probably have another thought about timing, but I believe that we should now say clearly that the House of Commons believes that this is a principle that should be contained in the Bill.

We all know that many people on large incomes find it difficult to pay their bills. That is why they use bankers' orders to pay their mortgages and other monthly instalments. It makes life more tolerable, and enables people to cope more easily with their daily lives. Families on supplementary benefit are in a more difficult situation, for they have nothing to spare. If they get behind one week they have difficulty in making it up the next. Therefore, if their rent falls behind by a month or two months, it may be the beginning of the slippery slope, and may land a family in distress, with family break-up, children in care, and all the rest of it. We should do all we can to avoid that situation. It is worth while going ahead with this provision, even though we may save only one family break-up or prevent one family tragedy.

Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park and other labour Members who shared our views in Committee will stand firm and support the principle of direct payment of rents. We are prepared to leave the details to be worked out by the Government in the proper way, but surely this is a principle which, for the sake of humanity and to avoid any further family trouble and distress—and there are more families who find themselves in difficulty every year—we should support. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and that the House will reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 183.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel


Allaun, Frank
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bates, Alf


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Blenkinsop, Arthur




Boardman, H.
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, Ernest


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Prescott, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Horam, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Radice, Giles


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Buchan, Norman
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clemitson, Ivor
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sandelson, Neville


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Judd, Frank
Selby, Harry


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Small, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dunn, James A.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Edge, Geoff
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marks, Kenneth
Tomlinson, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Watkinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeioved, James


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Whitlock, William


George, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ovenden, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hamling, William
Padley, Walter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur



Harper, Joseph
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hatton, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. John Ellis.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pendry, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brotherton, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cockcroft, John


Beith, A. J.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Bell, Ronald
Budgen, Nick
Cope, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bulmer, Esmond
Corrie, John


Benyon, W.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Crawford, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Crouch, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul
Crowder, F. P.







Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Drayson, Burnaby
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shepherd, Colin


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spence, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacCormick, Iain
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, Robert
Sproat, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Freud, Clement
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Thompson, George



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Henderson, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Watt, Hamish


Hooson, Emlyn
Paisley, Rev Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John
Wells, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil
Welsh, Andrew


Howell, David (Guildford)
Penhaligon, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Percival, Ian
Hunt, John


Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jessel, Toby
Reid, George
Younger, Hon George


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Fred Silvester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6

SURPLUS FUNDS OF NEW TOWN CORPORATIONS

6.30 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 17, leave out from 'surplus' to 'after' in line 18 and insert 'on capital account'.
The clause as it stands could be summed up as a "grabbing profits from the new towns" clause. If a new town development corporation makes a considerable profit, it should not inevitably go to the Government. It is only fair that if a new town development corporation makes a fair profit, it should be enabled to use it to improve the amenities of the new town.
The new towns make a tremendously significant contribution to Scotland. During the summer months many visitors to Scotland are taken specially to see them as models worthy of copying in other countries. We believe that the new towns are worthy examples for other places. I ask the Government to think again and perhaps to have a more general and nationalistic approach to the matter.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): Although I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, I have read the Committee proceedings. This matter was discussed at some length, and, moreover, since the Committee proceedings, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and to other members of the Committee explaining the Government's


thinking behind this provision and why they did not think it desirable that we should accept the amendment. In those circumstances, I do not wish to make a long speech about the amendment. I simply remind the House of the background against which the provision has been inserted in the Bill.
I shall not make anything of the fact that this provision was put into the English Act in 1972 by the former Conservative Government, because I accept that for this Government to follow the provisions of the previous Government in any respect would probably be the weakest argument for any provision we might be making.
Apart from that, there are substantial and reasonable arguments in favour of including this provision in the Bill. It is discretionary. In the event of a new town having a surplus, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to provide for the surplus to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Before there was any question of using this provision—it is not likely to be used in the near future—there will of course be consultations with the development corporation concerned.
The principle that surpluses may be recovered is already part of our existing new towns legislation. The 1968 Act, for example, provides that when a new town corporation is wound up any surpluses from the winding up should be paid into the Exchequer. That is a reasonable provision, because it takes account of the history of new town financing, which has been done very largely at the expense of the taxpayer.
We must remember that apart from loans made to the new towns, the development corporations already receive substantial Exchequer grants, apart from what is done to eliminate their housing deficits. For example, during the year to 31st March 1974, £1·8 million was paid to the new towns in Scotland by way of grants additional to the usual housing subsidies which are paid to public authorities. The effect of the financing arrangements for the new towns is that, for good reasons—because the new towns make an important contribution to economic development in Scotland and because they also provide admirable housing for the people who live in them—the taxpayer has taken on special obligations

towards them. That being so, and the taxpayer having invested considerable sums in new towns, it seems utterly reasonable that if and when the new towns begin to make surpluses there should at least be a discretionary provision—not obligatory or mandatory on the Secretary of State or the new towns—that, if the circumstances justify it and the surpluses are not required either for writing down the loans or for capital expenditure, they shall be paid back to the Government, from whom the original investment came.
As regards the present position in Scotland, East Kilbride and Stonehouse is earning a surplus on general revenue account. It is not earning a true surplus since it is still in deficit on its housing revenue account. However, on the general revenue account the surplus, with our approval, is at present being used to reduce the need for new borrowing in East Kilbride for ongoing development.
There will be considerable capital expenditure in building up the new town of Stonehouse. None of the other new towns is likely to be in a real surplus position before the 1980s except perhaps in respect of the effect on new towns of the Government's new policy for land which we shall have the opportunity of debating later in the Session. However, in the event of surpluses becoming available, it seems to us only right that one of the possibilities for dealing with them should be that they be paid back to the Exchequer. That is the sole, limited and inoffensive purpose of the provision. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that by raising this matter both during in Committee and now we shall make the Government think about something which, for the second time, is unfair to the new towns.
The Minister did not deal with our amendment. He gave us an interesting dissertation on the letter sent to us by his hon. Friend, but he did not deal with the difference between capital and revenue.

Mr. Millan: I did not deal with that because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) did not deal with it either when he moved


the amendment, so I thought that that was not a point to which the Opposition attached any importance.

Mr. Taylor: I am afraid that the Minister could not have been listening. That was the precise point to which my hon. Friend referred when speaking about repayment. We feel that it is unfair if the Government decide to take money from new towns with a surplus on capital account and deny them the right even to take the sum off the accumulated debt. If the Minister of State lent me £1,000—which is very unlikely—and I paid £500, I think it is fair and reasonable to regard that debt as being £500.
This proposal seems unfair. I had hoped by this amendment to make the Government look again at something which appears to be very unfair to the new towns.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to make heavy weather of this. I met all the new town chairmen and chief executives within the last fortnight to discuss problems relating to new towns. The Bill and this provision are well known to them. I have received no complaints about them. As I understand it, the new towns are not the least unhappy about this provision.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7

PHASING OF RENT INCREASES WHERE RENT FOR DWELLING-HOUSE UNDER TENANCY IS REGISTERED

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 21, leave out from 'rent' to 'which' in line 27 and insert:
'(whether registered before or after the commencement of this Act).'

Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider Government Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 24, 26 and 28 to 36.

Mr. Brown: The purpose of these amendments to to deal with especially steep increases in rents following the end of the freeze. Before I go any further, I direct hon. Members' attention to the explanatory material on the effect of these amendments, which has been made available. It was circulated to all members

of the Committee and I hope that they found it helpful. Under existing legislation tenants whose rent increases were in course of phasing when the freeze began, and those who had rents registered in the early months of the freeze, might have to pay an increase made up of two phased increases immediately after the end of the freeze—either together or within a short time of each other. In many cases this would result in very steep increases and would wipe away much of the counter-inflationary benefit of the freeze.
The effect of the amendments is to allow rents to be increased at a steady rate towards fair rent levels, following the end of the current standstill. The amendments can be summarised as follows.
For rents registered before the freeze which were already subject to phasing the new paragraph 5A provides that they shall resume phasing at the next stage which they would have been due to reach had the freeze not occurred, instead of resuming at two levels of phasing higher. This would have happened in a very large number of cases.
Sub-paragraph (3) of the new paragraph 5A provides that for rents registered during the freeze which would have been subject to existing phasing provisions, phasing shall begin from the end of the freeze instead of from the date on which the rent was registered.
Paragraph 5B introduces the same arrangement for rents registered before or during the freeze which were not previously entitled to phasing and which had not been increased to the registered rent when the freeze began.
The amendments are made within the framework of the fair rents system, which we introduced in 1965. As my right hon. Friend indicated on Second Reading, we are undertaking a longer-term review of housing policies and finance and we shall be looking closely at the system of "fair rents" as part of that review. In putting down these amendments, we are attempting to reduce the impact of steep increases in the post-freeze period. In that sense, they are designed to deal with a situation at a particular period of tme.
The changes will, however, enable us to make steady progress towards "fair rents" from what we must recognise as in many respects a low rent situation in Scotland. As I said when we discussed


an earlier group of amendments, this perhaps has made worse some of the problems arising from that policy. The amendments are made in keeping with the "fair rent' system. They do not significantly impede progress towards "fair rents", and they do not interfere with established rights of application for re-registration of a fair rent three years after the original registration.
The new phasing arrangements make it possible to repeal—and so rationalise—the existing phasing provisions contained in the initial Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 and the 1972 Act immediately, instead of in two years as the Bill provides at present. Most of the amendments in this group are consequential upon this change. We are all concerned, in the interests of the public, whom the Bill affects so directly, to simplify the legislation on private rents as far as possible, and we are therefore proposing that we should make this Bill the sole piece of legislation to which anyone need refer concerning phasing, instead of perpetuating phasing provisions in two other Acts.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will support me in these amendments, which attempt to solve sympathetically yet rationally the problems of phased rent movements, particularly in the post-freeze period. I commend the amendments with enthusiasm as being an attempt to introduce an element of justice to all concerned in a situation which has arisen because of the freeze.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two brief questions?
First, has he discussed this proposal with representatives of rent assessment committees, and do they envisage any practical difficulties? The committees will be meeting to consider new rents and a period of re-registration when the tenants will not be paying the rents which would have been paid according to their previous decisions.
Secondly, the Minister explained that new Clause 1 was not being introduced in England and Wales. To what extent is this bringing about a variation in practice, compared with the situation in England and Wales?

Mr. Brown: Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's first question, as I said earlier, I have had informal discussions with some of the people concerned in the operation of the Rent Act. Again, I can give the hon. Gentleman a fairly categorical assurance that this proposal should not present any problems from the point of view of administration or from that of the application of the fair rents policy.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are proposing simply a phasing arrangement which does not alter what might be described as the anniversary date of the registration of a rent. In some cases the tenants will arrive at the anniversary date where the rent can be re-registered, even though in some cases they will not have reached the fair rent. It does not cut across the basic principle of aiming towards a fair rent. However, because of the freeze and because of what we are doing, there is this difference in the final stage when the next registration may take place. In other words, it does not alter the date for that, but it means that in some cases the fair rent may not have been reached. It will not present any problems. It does not even introduce a new consideration, because the existing fair rent is already known and established.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, we are happy to be able to say that what we have done here is slightly better than the English and Welsh have done. This might have been appropriate to our debates in the past two days. The only provision made in the English and Welsh legislation is for those rents registered during the freeze. We are bringing in the category of rents which were registered before the freeze. I am sure that hon. Members will compliment us on having the initiative and vision to be slightly different and, as usual, better.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
'(4) The following provisions shall cease to have effect—

(a) section 79 of the 1971 Act and Schedule 13 thereto;
(b) section 37 of the 1972 Act and Schedule 6 thereto.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 9

INCREASES OF RENT UNDER CONTROLLED TENANCY PERMITTED TOWARDS COST OF REPAIRS

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'by' to end of subsection and insert:
'such sum as the rent officer considers reasonable having regard to the sum expended on repairs'.
This amendment was partially discussed in Committee, although we are putting a different face on it now.
Basically, we are dealing with approximately 5,000 substandard houses which still have controlled rents. The Bill contains provisions whereby fair rents cannot be established for these houses. Instead, the landlords are entitled to a return of only 12½ per cent. of the cost of any repairs that they do. The rents of most of these houses are very low. If a landlord wants to spend money on repairs, he will not be able to do so on the basis of the revenue from the rents of those houses. It seems to us that 12½ per cent. is unreasonable in view of the cost of borrowing money. If the landlord has to borrow money, he will not get an adequate return from his rents to finance the loan.
We do not suggest changing the figure to a higher percentage. Instead, we suggest that rent officers should be allowed to consider a reasonable return for the landlord who has to borrow money to pay for repairs. Each case will vary. Some repairs will be major; others will be minor. But, bearing in mind the cost of borrowing, 12½ per cent. is unreasonable and allows no flexibility.
I hope that the Minister will accept the principle, if not the exact wording, of the amendment.

Mr. Millan: I understand the reasoning behind the amendment.
The figure of 12½ per cent. is precedented in earlier housing legislation. I take the point that it is not easy to arrive at exactly the right percentage in a matter of this kind. We thought that in all the circumstances 12½ per cent. was probably about right.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we are dealing here with houses which are still subject to controlled tenancies and not to the fair rent provisions. Therefore, my principle objection to the amendment is that it brings the rent officer, who is concerned specifically with the fair rent provisions, into an area from which we have specifically excluded him for policy reasons and for other reasons which it is not appropriate for me to explain at the moment.
My second objection to the amendment is that it would introduce uncertainty about the effect that carrying out repairs would have on rents. Although the hon. Gentleman may think that by inserting a provision of this kind into the Bill the object would be achieved of encouraging landlords to spend more on repairs and to do them where in other circumstances they would not be willing to do them, there is an equal and perhaps greater danger that, with an element of uncertainty in the situation, a landlord would be less willing to carry out repairs than he would be under the clause as it is drafted.
7.0 p.m.
There would, of course, be certain anomalies also between one kind of tenant and another, with some tenants paying on a percentage basis and others through the rent assessment proceedings. But the basic arguments against the amendment are those I have mentioned. The first is that the rent officer would be introduced into an area where he has really no jurisdiction at the moment. The second is that the amendment would create uncertainty. On balance, the provision in the Bill is the better one, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we should encourage landlords in this kind of situation to carry out essential repairs to property and give them a certain financial incentive to do so.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has moved the amendment. Earlier, he wanted to curb the freedom of local authorities in the determination of rents. Now, paradoxically, he argues for more freedom to be given to rent officers to decide rent increases. It is a strange concept of democracy that would give less freedom to members of local


authorities democratically elected, but give what would appear to be absolute power in this respect to non-elected officials, the rent officers.
The amendment states that rents could be increased by
such sum as the rent officers considers reasonable having regard to the sum expended on repairs.
That would be giving the rent officer far too much latitude and, as my hon. Friend has said, it would be asking the rent officer to intrude into an area where he did not intrude before. It is more appropriate that this House should decide what is reasonable, and that is what the Government are attempting to do. One-eighth of the cost of repairs per annum seems to be a reasonable amount.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman pleaded for the rights of private tenants. That made me even more surprised by the amendment, because it would mean that a rent officer could, in effect, raise the rents of private tenants by exorbitant amounts. The Government's standpoint is far more reasonable in setting a ceiling in both the private sector and the public sector, including a ceiling on the amount to which rents can be raised per annum as a result of repairs carried out by the landlord.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am quite unimpressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but the Minister of State has put practical objections to the amendment which are worth considering. I hope that between now and later stages of the Bill he will reconsider whether 12½ per cent. is really an appropriate figure.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 7, line 26, leave out from 'subject to' to 'of that Schedule' and insert
'the note at the end'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 2

PHASING OF RENT INCREASES WHERE RENT FOR DWELLING-HOUSE UNDER REGULATED TENANCY IS REGISTERED

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 12, line 12, leave out '4 and 5' and insert '3(4), 4, 5, 5A and 5B'.

No. 10, in line 14, leave out from 'rent' to end of line 15.

No. 11, in line 20, leave out 'paragraph 4' and insert
'paragraphs 4, 5A and 5B'.

No. 12, in line 21, leave out 'immediately' and insert
'for the last rental period beginning'.

No. 13, in line 21, leave out 'the landlord was entitled to recover' and insert 'was payable'.

No. 14, in line 36, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).

No. 15, in page 13, line 31, leave out 'sub-paragraph (4)' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)'.

No. 16, in line 34, leave out 'where' and insert
'and for the purposes of this paragraph'.

No. 17, in page 14, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
'(4) Where the permitted increase for any rental period in terms of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above, other than any increase permitted in respect of a service element, would exceed £1.50 per week, the period of delay shall be extended, and
(a) the permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the first year of the period of delay is an increase to the following amount—
PRL+SE+£1.50 per week;
and
(b) the permitted increase for a rental period which begins during a subsequent year of the period of delay is an increase to the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before that year, was payable by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment, plus

(i) any increase permitted in respect of a service element not previously recovered and
(ii) £1.50 per week.

(5) Nothing in this Schedule shall enable a rent to be increased to an amount greater than the registered rent.'.

No. 18, in line 10, leave out from "agreement" to "which" in line 11 and insert:
with a tenant having security of tenure within the meaning of section 42(1) of the 1972 Act,".

No. 19, in line 18, leave out "immediately" and insert:
for the last rental period beginning".

No. 20, in line 19, leave out "the landlord was entitled to recover" and insert "was payable".

No. 21, in page 14, leave out lines 31 and 32.

No. 22, in line 36, leave out from "shall" to "begin" in line 37.

No. 23, in line 38, at end insert:
or, where paragraph 4 above applies, with the date when the rent agreement took effect".

No. 24, in line 39 at beginning insert:

"Modifications in cases where rent was registered before commencement of Act

5A.—(1) In relation to any registered rent which was subject to phasing under the provisions of section 79 of the 1971 Act and Schedule 13 thereto, or of section 37 of the 1972 Act and Schedule 6 thereto, sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of this paragraph shall apply in place of the said provisions.

(2) Where a rent was registered before 8th March 1974 and part of a period of delay imposed in respect thereof under any of the provisions specified in sub-paragraph (1) above remain unexpired on that date—

(a) in any case where 8th March 1974 fell within the second year of the said period of delay, this Schedule shall apply to the rent as if the second year of a period of delay imposed under this Schedule had ended at the commencement of this Act and as if the period of delay last mentioned had been extended under paragraph 3(4) above;
(b) in any case where 8th March 1974 fell within the first year of the period of delay first mentioned, this Schedule shall apply as if the second year of a period of delay imposed under this Schedule had begun at the commencement of this Act.

(3) In any case where a rent, which was subject to phasing under any of the provisions specified in sub-paragraph (1) above, was registered on or after 8th March 1974 but before the commencement of this Act, this Schedule shall apply to the rent as if—

(i) a period of delay in terms of this Schedule had begun at such commencement, and
(ii) the previous rent limit were the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before such commencement, was payable, by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment.

5B. Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 5A above shall apply in any case where—


(a) a rent was registered before the commencement of this Act, which was not subject to phasing under any of the provisions referred to in that sub-paragraph, and
(b) the previous rent limit in terms of that sub-paragraph is less than the registered rent,

as it applies in any such case as is mentioned in the said sub-paragraph (3)".

No. 25, in line 40, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
'6—(1) The Secretary of State may by order substitute, for the specified sum, or for the sum of £1.50 mentioned in paragraph 3(4) above, in relation to any year of the period of delay, or to the whole period, a sum other than the sum mentioned in this Schedule; and different sums may be specified for each of those cases or any of them.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under that sub-paragraph.
6A. In ascertaining for the purposes of this Schedule any difference between periods of different lengths, a month shall be treated as one-twelfth and a week as one-fifty-second of a year'.

No. 26, in page 15, line 22, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 26 and insert:
'for the words from "section 79" to "1972" there shall be substituted the words "section 7 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975".'.

No. 27, in line 30, leave out 'section 7' and insert:
'sections 7 and (Limitation of rent increases under rent agreement where no rent is registered for dwelling-house under regulated tenancy)'.

No. 28, in page 16, leave out lines 11 to 24.

No. 29, in line 27, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 31 and insert:
'for the words from "Schedule 13" to "1972" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975".'.

No. 30, in line 48, leave out from '(b)' to end of line 15 on page 17 and insert:
'for the words from "Schedule 13" to the end of head (b) there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975.".'—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 17, leave out lines 18 and 19.

No. 32, leave out lines 23 to 26 in column 3 and insert:
'Section 79.
Schedule 13.'.

No. 33, in page 18, line 8, leave out column 3 and insert: 'Sections 37 and 38.'.

No. 34, in column 3, leave out line 19 and insert:
'Schedule 6.
In Schedule 7, paragraphs 9 to 12'.

No. 35, in line 29, leave out 'this Part of'.

No. 36, in page 19, leave out lines 1 to 24.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is an important piece of legislation. In our manifesto for Scotland we promised to repeal the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, which indiscriminately put up rents, and to restore the power of local authorities to fix their own rents. The Bill fulfils that undertaking. From next May, local authorities will again be free to determine reasonable rents for the houses they provide and to make their own decisions about the size of the rate contribution to the housing revenue account.
The Bill also provides for a strengthening of the Government subsidy support available to local authorities, with £5 million more being made available by way of housing expenditure subsidy in 1975–76 and further increases thereafter. The rent income subsidy, which is meeting 90 per cent. of the loss of income of local authorities on the rent standstill in the current year, will be continued in 1975–76, when it will have totalled about £12 million to local authorities.
These two sums are not chickenfeed, and I am sure that the local authorities and the tenants recognise, as I hope the House recognises, that the Government are making a further substantial contribution to the provision of adequate housing in the public sector. The Bill has revealed a fundamental difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition, and we are not surprised about that. It seems still to be the case that the Opposition mistrust local authorities—even the new local authorities. That mistrust was behind the 1972 Act.
We have never accepted that principle. We have confidence in the ability and integrity of the new local authorities to build up their housing programmes, which have lagged behind because of the 1972 Act. The Bill will also give confidence to the building industry. We have not forgotten the private sector, by introducing a limitation on the increase of rents and the phasing provisions. This is an extremely important piece of housing legislation, and in political terms it is a fulfilment of a promise we have given. For these reasons, I hope the House will give it a Third Reading.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This is an important Bill, but I do not agree that it is acceptable. It is in two parts. The first part deals with the public sector and the second with the private sector. Our arguments in Committee were largely on the provisions for the public sector, although the hon. Gentleman has introduced some sweeping new amendments dealing with the private sector following reconsideration since the Committee stage and in the light of anomalies which might have arisen.
We object to the Bill for three main reasons. First, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, it fulfils an election pledge by the Labour Party to repeal the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972. What the hon. Gentleman has not done is give us any reasons why the Labour Party wished to do so. Apart from saying that it is a pledge fulfilled, the hon. Gentleman has not told us just what hardship was caused by the 1972 Act. What stands out is that the Act was subject to the most blatant campaign of unfair misrepresentation of any Act of Parliament.
There was no better example of this than the propaganda to the effect that rents of £7, £8 or £9 would be charged as a result of the Act. In Committee, the Minister gave us some details of the present percentage housing deficits of local authorities, which showed that several were on the point of achieving an economic rent, and so would not need to have substantial increases in future.
We also object to the Bill because the national rent rebate scheme which our Act introduced ensured that rents were related not to the political complexion of


the council but to the needs of the individual. As a result 241,000 tenants—three out of every 10—are at present receiving rent rebates, which average £75.
We also think that the Bill is wrong because it will add to housing deficits. The present deficit of around £27 million will increase by probably £8 million in 1975, which will mean more on the rates for everyone, including council tenants.
The most objectionable feature is that there will once again be wide variations in the levels of rents. Our Act was intended to bring about some harmony and do away with the situation in which rents in one area could be much above or below what they were in others. It can therefore be understood why we feel that the Government were wrong to repeal the 1972 Act and introduce the Bill.
We should aim at fairness. We believe that we had achieved fairness with the 1972 Act, first, because it helped those in need, second, because it limited rent increases until an economic rent had been reached to 50p a week and, third, because it aimed at eliminating the rates subsidy.

The 1972 Act was useful and beneficial and created no hardship. Under the Bill, we return to the system of councils being obliged to charge "reasonable" rents and to review them "from time to time". In Committee we tried to discover what was meant by "reasonable" and by "from time to time". The last time that this system was the law, because local authorities were not aware of their obligations, or tried to avoid them, cases were brought to court to establish whether councils had charged reasonable rents and reviewed them from time to time. Once again, we shall not have justice in this situation, and rates subsidies will mount in many towns, districts and new authorities.

We oppose the Bill because we feel that our Act tried fairly to take public housing out of the political arena and prevent rents from becoming a means by which a political party could distort the housing market and obtain votes by charging unreasonably low rents. Our Act was fair; this Bill is unfair, and will create unfairness throughout Scotland.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 147.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamling, William


Archer, Peter
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Hatton, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dormand, J. D.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Heffer, Eric S.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.
Henderson, Douglas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunn, James A.
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Bates, Alf
Eadie, Alex
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, John (Newton)
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fernyhouqh, Rt Hon E.
John, Brynmor


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Buchanan, Richard
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Canavan, Dennis
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Cartwright, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Gerald


Clemitson, Ivor
Freud, Clement
Kelley, Richard


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
George, Bruce
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Lamborn, Harry


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan
Lee, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Crawford, Douglas
Graham, Ted
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lipton, Marcus


Dalyell, Tam
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Litterick, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Luard, Evan


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)




Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Parker, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


MacCormick, Iain
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McElhone, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Prescott, John
Thompson, George


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maclennan, Robert
Reid, George
Tinn, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tomlinson, John


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Madden, Max
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mahon, Simon
Rodgers, George (Chorleyl
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marks, Kenneth
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marquand, David
Roper, John
Ward, Michael


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watkinson, John


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian
Weitzman, David


Mendelson, John
Selby, Harry
Wellbeloved, James


Mikardo, Ian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Welsh, Andrew


Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)
Whitlock, William


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Noble, Mike
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


O'Halloran, Michael
Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Ovenden, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Padley, Walter
Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pardoe, John
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)
Mr. John Ellis and


Park, George
Stott, Roger
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Bell, Ronald
Hall—Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Brittan, Leon
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Budgen, Nick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sainsbury, Tim


Channon, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shepherd, Colin


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Cockcroft, John
Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lane, David
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Speed, Keith


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spence, John


Crouch, David
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Crowder, F. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McCrindle, Robert
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David
Wakeham, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)







Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas



Weatherill, Bernard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. John Stradliag Thomas and


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Adam Butler.


Wiggin, Jerry

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is one of the consequences of local government reform. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the burgh and the county, as local government units, cease to exist on 16th May 1975. Thus, the administrative structure on which the existing burgh and justice of the peace courts are based is removed, and fresh arrangements are needed for the disposal of summary criminal cases.
It may be for the convenience of the House if, before describing the Bill in detail, I give some account of the steps leading up to it. The best starting point is probably the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, published in September 1969. The Royal Commission did not make detailed recommendations about the administration of justice but expressed its belief that the lay courts of summary jurisdiction could conveniently be reconstituted within the new structure of the district authorities and in association with them. That is in paragraph 1102 of Cmnd. Paper 4150.
As the House will appreciate, the Bill accords very closely with the commission's belief that the courts could be reconstituted within the new structure of district authorities. There were, however, several other steps—or, should I say, false starts?—between the commission's report and the Bill. In April 1971 the then Secretary of State said that the existing justice of the peace system should be developed with stipendiary magistrates appointed by the Crown in large centres of population to meet the need for a new system of courts after the reform of local government. A working party was set up which carried out a detailed examination of the existing arrangements and considered various aspects of the proposed new system. A White Paper called "Justices of the Peace and Justices' Courts" was presented to Parliament in March 1973. It took account of the working party's

report and proposed a system of justices' courts based on the area of the island or district authority but financed by the Government and staffed by officers of the sheriff court service. Even then, in March 1973, the deadline of May 1975 was not too far distant, and much administrative work remained to be done.
The proposals were strongly criticised because they made no arrangement for the provision of legal advice to the lay bench. The clerk of the court, provided by the sheriff court service, would, like the bench, have had no legal qualification. The then Government decided to try again, and a second set of proposals was announced in October 1973. They did not attempt to deal with this main criticism but performed a complete volte face—certainly in my view—without adequate explanation. Those of us who were in the House at the time remember that it was done in the form of a Written Answer in Hansard. Instead of the strengthened lay court of the White Paper, they proposed to abolish the centuries-old tradition of lay participation in the administration of justice and transfer all the work done in the existing lay courts to the sheriff summary court, strengthened by the appointment of a new type of lesser professional judge.
Although no Bill to implement these proposals had been introduced, they still held the field when we came to office at the beginning of March 1974. We therefore, had to act quickly. We noted that the previous administration's White Paper proposals had come unstuck not because the vast majority of people objected to lay justice—far from it—but on the simple point that lay courts require a legally qualified clerk and that was not what the White Paper proposals would have given them. We noted also that the abolition of the lay courts subsequently proposed by the previous administration had not been well received in Scotland except amongst certain sections of the legal fraternity—no surprise there.
My colleagues met representatives of the local authority associations who represented strongly in favour of lay participation in the administration of justice and emphasised the part played by local authorities and their members in the existing system. They put forward a


strong case—as, I am bound to say, did the previous Government's White Paper—for the continuation of lay judges in the lower courts. By July, I was ready, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to announce my proposals. It was clear to us that what was required, and what would be most acceptable to the Scottish people, was a continuation of lay courts with legally qualified clerks and the defects of the existing courts removed—and there are defects.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he say whether there were any representations from anyone other than local authorities to retain the lay system of justice?

Mr. Ross: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were—probably one from me as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Rifkind: Who else?

Mr. Ross: We could go on like this, all along the line.
We recognise that there were defects in the old system. In too many cases the existing magistrates receive insufficient training for the work they are called upon to do. The criminal legal aid scheme does not extend to these courts and no accused person before them, therefore, is able to obtain legal aid. The public prosecutors in the 280-odd existing lay courts are not members of a service and are not subject to direction by the Lord Advocate.
What the present Bill does is to provide for a continuation of lay summary justice in Scotland and, at the same time, to make provision for the removal of the defects in the existing system.
One of the most important features of our proposals and one which has been widely welcomed is the emphasis placed on the provision of training for the justices of the peace. All justices will be expected to accept training appropriate to their experience, if any, and there is a power in the Bill to disqualify any justices who fail to accept training from sitting on the bench. This will apply not only to new justices but to existing justices and burgh magistrates, and to the justices

to be appointed by district councils, to whom I shall refer later.
Lack of training requirements and facilities for the judges of the existing lay courts is one of the great weaknesses at present, and those powers are designed to remedy this situation. In order to provide an immediate stimulus, a training officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Legal aid at an estimated cost of £130,000 annually will be available from the setting up of the courts from 16th May 1975.
Under the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will take over, through the procurator-fiscal service, prosecution in these courts. The take-over will be completed by 16th May 1976.
As the House knows, this Bill was introduced in another place on 13th November last year. The Bill provided for the appointment of judges from three sources—first, the burgh magistrates in office on 15th May 1975; secondly, nominations by islands and district authorities; and, thirdly, existing justices of the peace.
In Committee in another place, however, the provisions in Clause 11 on nominations of justices of the peace ex-officio by islands and district authorities were removed, against the strong advice of my noble Friend the Minister of State, who gave a clear warning that we would seek to restore these provisions.
As this is the first opportunity for me to comment on the matter, I wish to support what my noble Friend said and to repeat that we propose in Committee to restore these provisions in their original form.
The Bill was further amended in another place on Report, when an addition was made to Clause 5, against the advice of my noble Friend. That was in relation to the Secretary of State's duty to appoint stipendiary magistrates. Again, we shall propose a suitable amendment in Committee.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will the appointment of ex-officio magistrates include police judges who were attached to the former burghs?

Mr. Ross: That is a good point. There is a measure of doubt whether "magistrates" includes police judges. Police judges tend to be the most experienced of the magistrates in the present system. We shall make it absolutely clear that they are covered by moving an appropriate amendment in Committee.
I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Part I provides for the setting up of the system of district courts on 16th May 1975. There will be a district court for each commission area, except where the Secretary of State otherwise directs. A commission area is defined in Clause 26 as
a district or islands area within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
There are one or two rural areas where there are virtually no burgh or justice of the peace courts at present because there are so few criminal cases to be dealt with. Those few are taken in the sheriff court. If the local authorities concerned take the view that a district court would not be necessary, I shall be prepared to consider directing accordingly, though I would not envisage that the power of direction would be used to any great extent.
Clause 1(2) transfers to a justice of the peace functions of burgh magistrates not otherwise provided for and the remainder of this clause provides for proceedings to be continued smoothly over the transition to the new system and for the transfer of records and documents.
Clause 2(1) provides that the commission area shall be the district of the district court and that the places at which it sits and the days and times when it sits shall be determined by the local authority concerned.
Clause 2(2) provides that the bench shall be constituted by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices. This allows for the maximum flexibility. Scotland has a tradition of a single burgh magistrate on the bench, but the tradition is for two or more justices to sit together in the justice of the peace court. The Bill allows for local decisions on these matters.
Clause 3(1) gives the district court the jurisdiction and powers of the existing courts. Under subsection (2), when the court is constituted by a stipendiary magistrate it will have, in addition, the

summary criminal jurisdiction and powers of a sheriff. This preserves the present position in the case of a burgh court constituted by a stipendiary magistrate.
Subsection (3) raises from £50 to £100 the fine which can be imposed by the lay court on convicting a person of a common law offence. Since the level was last raised in 1963, this increase is required to take account of the change in the value of money.
Clause 4 is concerned with procedure and practice and applies the existing rules of procedure and practice to the new courts. The High Court is given power to regulate procedure and practice in the district courts.
Clause 5 provides for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. Since, as I have indicated, it is bound to be debated in Committee I shall not enter now into any argument about its scope. There is room for argument over the extent of the powers which the Secretary of State should have under this clause. We think that subsection (4), which was not in the Bill as we drafted it, goes too far.
Clause 6 is an important clause, concerning prosecutions. We have decided that prosecution in the new courts should become the responsibility of the procurator-fiscal service. The Crown Office has already been in touch with local authorities about the areas in which the procurator fiscal will be able to take over prosecutions from the beginning of the new system.
I am pleased that my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate has felt able to take over the entire responsibility. This will be done in two phases. The first, from 16th May 1975, will cover about two-thirds of the commission areas. The second, from 16th May 1976, will cover all the remaining areas. Thus, the provisions in subsections (2) and (9) relating to district prosecutors are essentially transitional.
Clause 7 requires the local authority to appoint a clerk of the district court who shall be legally qualified. The local authority associations have already confirmed that authorities will be willing to provide staff and at their request the clause is drafted to allow for part-time appointments and for the employment by agreement of an officer of a regional council.
Clause 8(1) requires a local authority to provide suitable premises and facilities for the purposes of the court. Subsection (2), without prejudice to the general duty, eases the transition to the new system by providing that premises used to any extent for the purposes of the existing courts should continue to be made available by the authority concerned.
Part II of the Bill is concerned with justices and clerks of the peace. Much of it is re-enactment of existing statute, and it may be sufficient if I describe briefly the new provisions in this part of the Bill. At present the appointment of justices is effected by the inscription of their names under the Secretary of State's authority in the commissions of the peace which have been issued in each county. Under Clause 9 from 16th May 1975 new commissions will be issued for district and island areas. Names will not be inscribed in these commissions, but appointments will be made by instrument signed by the Secretary of State.
Clause 10 provides for the appointment as justices of the peace of burgh magistrates holding office immediately before 16th May 1975. Such justices and those already holding office will be treated as though they had been appointed under the provisions of Clause 9.
In my announcement of the Government's proposals on 15th July 1974 I said that we intended that all police judges in office on 15th May 1975 would also be appointed justices of the peace as in many areas they are the most experienced judges in the existing courts, having generally been bailies before they became police judges.
Some doubt has been expressed whether the term "magistrate" in Clause 10 would cover police judges and, in order to put the issue beyond doubt in Committee we shall propose an amendment to include a specific reference to police judges.

Mr. Dempsey: This is a most important point. I should like publicly to thank my right hon. Friend for such profound consideration, but will he say, since a magistrate may act at the moment as a temporary justice of the peace, whether at the time of the dissolution of the burghs he intends the appointment of justices of the peace to be permanent?

Mr. Ross: It will be permanent within the restrictions of age and everything else. The retirement age for JPs is 70. I do not know whether there is any such restriction in relation to bailies or police judges.
Clause 10 also contains provisions about the determination of the commission areas in which justices are to hold office. Clause 11 in its amended form provides that all existing justices who hold office by virtue of any other office will cease to do so on 16th May 1975. As I have already said, we hope to restore to this clause the provisions on nomination of ex-officio justices by district and islands authorities which were removed in another place.
Clause 14 confers on the Secretary of State a new power to make schemes and provide courses for the instruction of justices. Justices' committees to be appointed under Clause 16 will be required to implement and administer the schemes. All justices will be expected to accept training appropriate to their experience and under Clause 15 it will be possible for the Secretary of State to disqualify any who fail to accept training from sitting on the bench.
Clause 16 on justices' committees is a new provision. There is no precise equivalent at present to the proposed justices' committee who under subsection (1) will be responsible for advising and assisting the local authority on matters relating to the administration of the court. The justices' committee will also approve the duty rota of judges and have special responsibilities for training of justices. The justices will elect the committee annually but any stipendiary magistrate will be a member of the committee by virtue of his office. Although Clause 17 is an important one, dealing with allowances, it is essentially a re-enactment of existing law to fit the new arrangements.
Clause 18 provides for the appointment of a clerk of peace by the islands or district authority. This name is being retained for reasons of tradition; the duties of the new clerk of the peace are those of a clerk to the justices as a body and are listed in subsection (4). This clause, like Clause 7 on the clerk of the court and Clause 22 on the clerk to the licensing court, allows for a full-time or part-time appointment and for the


appointment by agreement of an officer of a regional council. Thus the local authorities are responsible on the same basis for three appointments under the Bill; there is nothing to stop the same person being appointed to all three, or to two of them, according to local circumstances. The existing office of clerk of the peace will be discontinued and there is due provision for compensation in Clause 19.
Part III, which is called "Miscellaneous and General", need not detain us long, tonight at any rate. The amendments to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 in Clause 21 pave the way for the introduction of legal aid in the district court. The annual cost of legal aid in the district court is estimated, as I have said, as £130,000. The introduction of legal aid will meet another of the main criticisms of the existing system, and our proposal for its introduction has been warmly welcomed. There has been a gap hitherto, in that there has been no provision for legal aid in the lower summary courts, and in view of Scotland's tradition of legal aid being available to all it is desirable that this gap should be filled.
Since there was some confusion in another place about the dates of the coming into operation of the Bill, perhaps I should say a word about Clause 27(2). The sections referred to specifically in subsection (2) will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill will come into operation on 16th May 1975.
Finally, since I have given notice already of some amendments for Committee stage, I ought to let the House know that there will probably have to be some rather technical amendments made in Committee or on Report to take account of the passage through Parliament of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill—a consolidation measure now being considered in another place.
I hope that the House will agree that the Bill meets the objectives set by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. First, it contains a system which can operate from 16th May 1975 without undue disruption. Secondly it avoids the

extremes which caused the criticisms of our predecessors' two sets of proposals. Thirdly, it preserves the good and democratic features of the existing system while introducing some long needed improvements.
I commend the Bill to the House.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the introduction of a Bill to reform the system of summary justice in Scotland. However, I cannot share his enthusiasm for the form that the Bill has taken. As he said, when we considered this matter when we were in Government we did not come to anything like the same conclusion as he has. The Secretary of State rather unfairly referred to the false starts and the volte-face and so on. When we were in Government we looked at this question in considerable depth. We published a very good White Paper which set out many of the considerations which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in the Bill. However, what I will not accept criticism for—and I make no apology for the change of policy that we adopted—is that, having published that White Paper and made the proposals, we were prepared to react to the various representations about the White Paper.
The Secretary of State does less than justice to the course of action followed by the Conservative Government and to the kind of representations to which we paid attention. The right hon. Gentleman has simply paid attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) pointed out, to one area of representation—that of the existing local authorities and the members of the existing burgh courts. Under our proposals we were much more prepared to react, and we reacted to a much wider breadth of opinion. I wish that all Governments were prepared to be more sensitive to representations made about their White Papers. In our reaction to the various representations we showed not only a flexibility but a willingness to consider the strength of opinion and the views put to us. There was no blindness or stubbornness on our part to push through proposals which were not wholly appropriate for the situation.

Mr. William Ross: I have never regarded White Papers as sacred documents. They should be liable to change, otherwise there could be no fruitful discussions as a result of them. Perhaps I could draw the hon. Member's attention to his Government's White Paper on local government reorganisation. His Government said that there were proposals in it which were non-negotiable, and these have proved terribly unpopular in Scotland. However, tearing up a White Paper and replacing it with a totally different system is a totally different matter.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that it is not in the right hon. Gentleman's nature to be flexible. Therefore, I see no point in pursuing the matter further. It shows an openness of mind and common sense to change proposals that are demonstrably wrong. I make no apology for that.
I shall explain why we changed our proposals, because that will help to show the wrongness of the conclusions to which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have come. The change is a natural consequence of the reorganisation of local government. The basic position in our White Paper was that in the establishment of our new system of summary justice there should be a separation from the local authority of the new court set-up which was to replace the JP and burgh courts. The Secretary of State is now back to a close tie-up with the new local authorities. Our principle was one on which we received no opposition or representations. I believe that it was generally welcomed throughout Scotland that there should be a separation of the new summary courts from local government.
The questions raised, the ones to which we reacted, concerned the principle and practicality of lay justice. In the White Paper we came down on the side of the principle of lay justice, which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in the Bill. The opposition to it turned on the question of practicality. It is true that much of the opposition to our White Paper and to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals came from legal opinion, from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Agents Society. But the right hon. Gentleman

should not denegrate that, as he tended to do tonight. He should not say that the opposition came only from legal opinion. Just as we must take account of the representations of those who constitute the law magistracy, we should also take account of the wider opinion expressed from legal circles generally. There can be no question of simple self-interest in that expression of legal opinion, though that has sometimes been hinted. Those who opposed our White Paper, and now oppose the right hon. Gentleman's principles, have practical, sensible grounds for that opposition.
Even among those who supported the lay justice, the problem turned on the practical question of staffing the courts and the essential need for them to be staffed by legally-qualified clerks or assessors. What was to be the source of those legally-qualified staff? We hoped to staff the courts through the sheriff clerk service, but that did not prove to be a practical possibility.
Therefore, we had to examine the servicing of the existing courts, which was through the local authorities. But it was a basic principle, which we accepted from the beginning, that we wanted to get away from the direct connection with the local authorities.
That left a third source of legally-qualified staff, which was lawyers already in practice in the different areas. It raised the whole question whether it was right to bring in people from private practice and the question of the availability of legal expertise in certain areas, particularly in the rural areas.
I have gone over the argument quickly because a number of hon. Members want to speak, but I think that I have shown that on practical grounds there was good reason for calling in question some of the assumptions which were in our original White Paper and which underlie the Bill. That is one reason why we came to the decision that we should have professional judges.
I believe that our proposals were justified on wider grounds than those, and it is on those wider grounds that I criticise the Bill. I was the Minister in the Scottish Office who had to handle the matter. I had to consider the higher principles on which this form of summary justice


should be based. When we have a watershed in the reorganisation of local government, with the opportunity, of necessity, to reorganise summary justice and the whole system of justice throughout Scotland, it is important to return to the principles on which that justice should be based, and not simply try blindly to reproduce a system of justice similar to the existing one, as the right hon. Gentleman has done in the Bill.
Two things bore with me in my consideration, and bear with me just as much today. The first is the quality of the justice to be administered. There will be argument tonight as to whether the quality of justice would be better under one system or another. My judgment is that a professional system is better. We accept it in the sheriff courts, so it is no innovation.
The second important principle is a uniformity of justice, which I believe is better achieved through a professional system of magistrates and judges. Because he is professional and full-time, each judge handles a much greater number of cases, and, therefore, the opportunity for uniformity is that much greater. With due respect to the burgh courts—and there has been considerable criticism of them in another place and elsewhere—I believe that both quality and uniformity of justice are better achieved by professional judges than by amateurs.
It is to the customer of the system that the quality and uniformity matter, and, in my view, the customer is the person who finds himself having to stand in a court and have justice administered to him. Through the professional system we are much more likely to be fair to that person than if we seek to please those currently administering that justice, as the right hon. Gentleman has done. It is the person to whom the justice is administered that matters to me, rather than the person who administers it.
On those points of quality and uniformity of justice, and the standard of service received by those to whom it is administered, I believe that under the professional system we should have achieved a higher standard than we have achieved or are likely to achieve under an amateur system.
There is another practical argument which I must adduce. I believe that the Secretary of State is losing the opportunity of unifying the whole system of summary justice throughout Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman rightly claims merit for unifying the system of prosecution. That is to be welcomed under the procurator fiscal system as administered by the Lord Advocate. The Bill offers an opportunity to unify the administration of summary justice in Scotland by bringing the justices within the sheriff court system. It is only a short time since the new sheriff court system was set up in Scotland. I am sorry that the opportunity has been missed.
As I have said, we have recently set up the new sheriff court system. It would have made common sense in terms of efficiency of administration if we had given that structure the work load of what are called the lower or inferior courts instead of introducing separate district courts. I very much regret that the Government have not followed the lead that we gave them. They have missed an opportunity to improve and modernise the administration of justice in Scotland.
I am by no means alone in making that comment. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister who winds up will be able to say any more on that topic. The right hon. Gentleman, when he responded to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands, made it clear that in changing the policy of the previous Government he was doing so as a result of the representations that he had received from those already staffing the magistracy in the lay courts in Scotland and as a result of the representations that he had made. We must remember that. I beg him to look further. What he has done has by no means received universal acclaim. A leader in the Glasgow Herald of 16th January reads:
It did not seem likely that he"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
would take the opportunity not only of creating more efficient and professional lower Courts, but also of making Scotland a progressive force in the administration of justice.
Obviously, hopes were high. The leader continues:
In dismissing the case for professional magistrates, Mr. Ross has ignored the clear case for lower Court reform.


That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done. In a leader in the Scotsman of the same date—this is informed opinion and not just the opinion of lawyers—it is said
A great opportunity of combining local government reorganisation with the reform of the lower courts is being thrown away.
That is precisely what has happened. The headline of an article in the Scotsman of 20th January reads
District courts could become battleground.
The right hon. Gentleman is letting us in for that sort of situation. I believe that he has missed a good opportunity to reform the whole system of summary justice in Scotland.
I now turn to one or two points of detail which I hope will be answered when the Minister winds up. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the representations—they were limited representations—that he has received. The House will be interested to know about the representations that he received from, for example, the central advisory committee of the justices of the peace. That is a body whose members were responsible in one area at least for administering lay justice in Scotland. It would be useful to the House to know the terms of their representations and advice.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that from the ranks of the new local authorities he will obtain a sufficient number of justices of the peace? Those of us who sat on the Committee which handled local government reorganisation know that the job of the new councils, whether at regional or district council level, is much more onerous and more demanding than the job of the county and burgh councils. They have more people to represent and they have a more demanding task. Given that situation, and given the great keeness and enthusiasm of those who constitute the existing magistrates and justices, will the present attitude continue when the new authorities come into full operation in May and the increased demands are made?
Next, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Training is essential for the operation of the system that he recommends, but it demands time. Given the time that the councillors will have to

give to their various duties, will they have time for training? That is an important matter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about training and for his statement that a training officer will be appointed. But is there enough time between now and 16th May, when the new courts will come into being, when as yet no training has taken place? I hope that we shall hear what is being planned.
My next point concerns legal aid. I welcome the extension of legal aid to the lower courts. At the same time, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has his eyes open to the fact that its introduction is likely to increase the work load of the courts. It is a good thing that legal aid should be provided, but it does not necessarily make sense to add to the work load at the same time. It makes little sense to do so when the right hon. Gentleman is retaining the lay magistrate administration of justice. As we all know, stipendiary magistrates can get through a far greater work load. It is contradictory to increase the work load and at the same time not introduce the sensible and logical reform of introducing magistrates who will be able to undertake a much greater work load.
I must stress that I was disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the improvements made in another place. I hope that the Minister who winds up will have more to say about that. I do not believe that the appointment by local authorities of new justices of the peace is necessarily the most appropriate course to take. I would accept recommendation, but I believe that final consideration and appointment by the Secretary of State—namely, the practice that now exists—is a very much better way of proceeding. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again before he seeks to turn the Bill back in Committee about whether the initiative for the introduction of stipendiary magistrates is to lie in the hands of the Secretary of State or in the hands of the new local authorities. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about that instead of steamrollering the Bill back to what it was originally.
Basically I do not like the Bill in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced it However, we have to have a Bill of this type before 16th May.


Whilst I do not like it, I do not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House against it. With the exception of the matters that I have mentioned, I think that the Bill has been improved, and I do not think that we should divide against it. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that we shall reconsider our position if on Third Reading the Government have removed the improvements which were made in another place.
The Government have missed a good chance of reforming and making more efficient the system of summary justice in Scotland. It is my regret and the regret of many people in Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman has let the chance slip him by.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I noted that the arguments of the hon. Member for North Angus and Meatus (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) were based on the legalistic point of view. My view is that the Secretary of State is right to retain a lay element on the bench. It is held in the Advocates Library in Edinburgh, and in other places, that laymen should not come to this House and attempt to alter the law without the advice of lawyers. When I introduced the First Offenders (Scotland) Bill in 1959 there were criticisms from the Advocates Library and elsewhere. People asked "Who is this man to intervene in the law?" My measure was later emasculated in the Criminal Justice Act.
All the wisdom in the world and all the social justice does not reside in legal textbooks. We had to call on the Official Solicitor to get the Tory Government off the hook on one occasion. That was the result of the advocacy given at that time. Lay magistrates give a good deal of attention to cases. Take the example of the old days, and the order to buy or quit. The advice given to the person affected, such as a small shopkeeper, was to go not to lawyers but to lay magistrates, the justices of the peace, and to ask what was to be done. These people had no books. All they did was to go to Kilmarnock or Ayr court and say "Your honour, who suffers the greater hardship? The landlord without his rent, or me without a house?" There is no legal textbook which will give an analytical

description of subsections (3), (4) or (5) of the "Buy or Quit Act".
I sat for some time as a lay magistrate, so I do have experience on this subject. The will of the Sovereign means habitual obedience on the part of the subject. The lawyers listen to the case, nod, and then preen themselves thinking what splendid magistrates they are. Those who sit as justices of the peace are involved in expense. They have to go to court on Monday mornings and employers do not make up their pay. The lay magistrate occupies that position because of the will of the community. These men and women have the capability to interpret the law. They need a lot of guile. Often there may be a vacancy for the superintendent which has a nice house with the job. That could mean that a lot of cases of every kind are brought before the magistrates.
I am 100 per cent. behind the Secretary of State in his endeavour to preserve the lay element and to see that there is an even-handed administration of the law.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: In the midst of so many legal luminaries of various shades of splendour I take heart from the fact that the Secretary of State was, like me, a teacher. If he is able to speak on the Bill I see no reason why I ought not to add my contribution. I have never been in a court, except perhaps once, on a minor charge in the Army. I was suitably admonished for skipping rugby practice.
If I were to appear before a court—which God forbid—I would rather be dealt with by a stipendiary magistrate who is trained in the law than by a lay magistrate. Many people in Scotland share that view, including some who have been dealt with by lay magistrates. Other professions do not accept laymen. They are not accepted in medicine. No matter how trivial my complaint, I go to a qualified doctor. I do not usually go to the village spaewife to consult her about what remedy I should take.

Mr. Frank McElhone: It might be better.

Mr. Thompson: That is the hon. Member's opinion. I dare say that self-medication is often equally effective.
The teaching profession has always been most jealous of its prerogatives and has not normally accepted laymen. I could also quote the ministry and the Civil Service. We always want trained people to deal with these important aspects of our lives. If we will not allow lay folk in these professions, why should we allow them in the judiciary? If it is argued that lay justices introduce an element of democracy and if democracy is what we are seeking, we ought to be arguing for the election of lay magistrates and not for their nomination in one way or another.
If we have laymen on the bench in the lower courts I fail to see why we should not have them also in the higher courts. If a lay magistrate is needed in a lower court to understand the ordinary circumstances of people's lives, is it not equally true in the higher courts, which are dealing with people in severe difficulties? I do not think that a mixed system of lay and stipendiary magistrates has much to commend it.
In this case we are saying that the sole criterion for determining which sort of magistrate we shall have is the amount of business that passes through a court. It is not the amount of business but the fair administration of law which should be the criterion. Might it not be thought, from a reading of the Bill, that the lower courts are less important than the higher courts? In some respects this is true, but it is the case, too, that the lower courts are desperately important because so many people who become criminals make their first contact with the administration of justice through the lower courts.
It is essential to have a fair system of justice in these lower courts—a system that is seen to be fair. In that way there is a good chance that the budding criminal will give up the course on which he has set out. Such fairness is much more likely to be achieved by paid magistrates than by unpaid amateurs. If there is to be overall fairness in Scotland it is more likely to come about through the operation of a small corps of professional magistrates than by the operation of a large body of semi-trained magistrates.
I do not believe that the training envisaged in the Bill, unless it is spelt out much more clearly, will necessarily result in a trained magistracy. Naturally, we

welcome the extension of legal aid to the district court. I commend this provision. If I might make a suggestion, it is that an accused person should, in certain circumstances, be allowed to opt for trial before the sheriff rather than the district court.
I would like to ask, is it envisaged that the prosecutor in the district court will be a qualified person? I understand that in the lower courts the prosecutor is often unqualified.
My hon. Friends and I will not divide the House tonight, because the district courts must be in being by May, but we must register our strong reservations on the method employed by the Secretary of State to continue the lower courts in Scotland.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: The Bill means a transformation of the operation of justice in the lower courts throughout Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised that point. We shall lose some magistrates courts which have been in operation for nearly 700 years. In my constituency they have been in operation for 150 years and nearly 200 years, respectively. It is therefore only right that my right hon. Friend should apply his mind to the replacement of this system of justice in view of the reorganisation of local government.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his lucid presentation of the main purpose of the Bill and commend him on the deep penetrative thought he has given to the question of devising a system of democratic justice. No doubt he, like others of us, has been subjected to pressure to the effect that there should be a full-time legal representative known as a stipendiary magistrate or that there should be a system of lay justice.
I am at a loss to understand the argument of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), who talked about the need for professionalism in local courts. There are all sorts of courts. There are industrial courts, in which a person may be found guilty or not guilty of misconduct. No one suggests that there should be a full-time legal representative in those courts. There are social insurance courts, in which a person may be found guilty or not guilty of failing to comply with the


standard period of notice to entitle him to receive benefit. No one suggests that there should be a legal representative in those courts. There are children's panels. Would anyone in his senses suggest that a legally qualified person should determine whether a juvenile has committed an offence?

Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a child who appears before a children's panel does not accept that he is guilty the matter must be tried by the sheriff? Does the hon. Gentleman know of any example in which a person may have a criminal offence on his record for the rest of his life, or for many years, which has not been determined by a legally-qualified person?

Mr. Dempsey: I have known of cases where an offence has appeared on a charge sheet in a local magistrates' court with no legal representatives on the bench.
I am at a loss to understand some of the arguments. A lay magistrate does not simply listen to the case for and the case against and decide the matter. A legal fiscal prosecutes on behalf of the authorities and a legally-qualified clerk advises him on the law. In October, in court, I gave a decision which has been appealed against. It was an important decision. It might be a test case. It was an unusual charge. I had the assistance of a legally-qualified clerk in drawing up the presentation of a stated case to the fiscal.
I am staggered that the hon. Member for Galloway should give the impression that unfairness results unless there is a legal representative on the bench. That is untrue. I say that as a practising justice of the peace. I do my stints during the parliamentary recesses. I did a stint during the Christmas Recess. I am already booked to do a stint at Easter.
We bend over backwards to assist the accused person. He may have no experience of courts, and therefore we go out of our way and give him every encouragement to ensure that his view is not only fully explained but fully understood before a decision is made. I cannot say the same about some of the sheriff courts. I could give examples of unfairness which have occurred while legal experts have been sitting on the bench.

Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is why we have a system of courts of appeal? I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the many excellent lay magistrates in Scotland that there is a feeling among some of us that the best traditions, of which the hon. Gentleman is an excellent representative, are not always followed.

Mr. Dempsey: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about a system of appeal for the legal intelligentsia. There is also a system of appeal for the local courts. I sent a person to an institution for training. Because of the remarkable progress which he made, an appeal was lodged with the Secretary of State, who wrote to the two justices of the peace who had sentenced him—he does not realise that I was one of them—and asked whether they agreed with the recommendation from the superintendent of the institution that there should be some remission of the sentence. After studying the recommendation, I agreed. There is therefore a system of appeal, whether it be for justice of the peace courts or sheriff courts.
One must decide whether one believes in full-time stipendiary magistrates. There is a case for and a case against. If one examines both attitudes, as I have done, it becomes a matter of opinion.
I give my right hon. Friend credit for arriving at the opinion that lay magistrates should continue. In these days there is too much expertise. We have only to set up a small department and, overnight, a huge army of experts appears. There are some in my right hon. Friend's Department. One of them wrote to me telling me that the JP courts were finished and suggesting that I, too, was finished. I have done JP service for 20 years and have never charged the authorities a halfpenny. I have never had my bus fare or even a cup of tea, but I am sure that the gentleman who wrote that letter enjoys a good fat salary. I am a great believer in voluntary effort. As long as we have voluntary effort our country will go from strength to strength. A valid reason for the Bill to be given a Second Reading is that my right hon. Friend recognises that voluntary effort.
In the administration of justice I am the first to concede that there are different attitudes, different decisions and different


punishments in the enforcement of the law, but that is not all the responsibility of the lay justice; it is the responsibility of the courts. For example, under the Burgh Police Acts the maximum fine for a person who is convicted of committing a nuisance may be £2, but in the court in which I operate the first fine is £10. It would cost much less to spend a penny than to commit an offence in the main streets of any town that comes within the jurisdiction of my court. There is a disparity between the fines, not between the lay justices. We have to adjust the law to achieve the desirable degree of uniformity.
The extension of legal aid to lay justices' courts will mean much extra work for those courts. I predict that the first result of that extension will be in the increased number of trials that will take place in lay courts. Even in a JP court a trial might take several hours. No doubt there is an argument in favour of legal aid for certain offences, but the extension of legal aid will mean a substantial increase in the number of sittings of the court and the length of time the court will have to sit. My right hon. Friend must ensure an adequate supply of justices to serve those courts.
If the legal judiciary were to be concerned with minor offences, such as dropping litter, breaches of the peace, breaking glass and committing nuisances, it would clutter up the legal administration and there would be chaos. Minor offences must be kept separate to avoid chaos. In the sheriff courts the period of waiting before cases are tried is six months, nine months or even 12 months. What will happen if the courts are cluttered up with minor offences? I am glad that my right hon. Friend has absorbed that and avoided chaos by continuing the system of lay justice.
How are justices of the peace to be attracted? I sit as a JP in a court in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) in Bellshill. All JPs are expected to serve twice a year. Some do not, and we are lucky if half serve once a year. That is an illustration of how difficult it is to get JPs to turn out and fulfil the undertaking they give when they take the oath to serve. That is a weakness which my right hon. Friend will have to overcome.
If we are amalgamating the courts and there is to be only one court in a town, that court will be busy. It will have to meet four and possibly five days a week, and it will be necessary to recruit more JPs to serve in the court. I do not understand the anomaly of having two JPs to decide cases. One magistrate can determine an issue, but it takes two JPs to determine the same issue on the same type of offence and to administer the same Act.
The Minister said that the situation would be at the discretion of the local authority. I hope that he will pay due attention to the situation, and that if cases tend to pile up and there is a shorage of justices, one justice of the peace will be able to determine them.
I believe that there should be some provision in the Bill to deal with non-attending justices of the peace—people who want the honour of the position but do not intend to fulfil their obligations. I see no provision in the Bill by which such people may be removed from the justices' panel. I hope that the Government will examine this matter before the Committee stage to determine a formula by which people who fail to satisfy their promise to the Secretary of State may be removed from the panel.
When the Minister replies, will he explain the system of allowances? The Bill covers travelling allowance and subsistence, but do the relevant provisions cover loss of earnings? Loss of earnings in pursuit of duty can be a large drawback to a lay justice of the peace. Many working people are unable to claim against loss of earnings, and this may hinder their enthusiasm to attend court sittings. I hope that we shall be given some assurance on this point tonight.
If loss of earnings is included in the definition of "expenses", may we be told whether there is a ceiling to the eligible amount which a person may claim? At my last court sitting I overheard a business man complaining about the amount of business he had lost by having to sit in the Bellshill Court. These are important considerations, which must be borne in mind before people accept nominations as justices of the peace.
With regard to the appointment of justices, is it intended to confine appointments solely to those from elected district


councils, or will the system embrace other persons in the community who give excellent voluntary service? Under the present system, I know from personal experience that in Lanark such people are in the main not considered, because nominees are put forward by political parties. I have no objection to that system, but I am emphasising the fact that there are other people, who give wonderful voluntary service to the community morning, noon and night, who should be considered for these posts. I should like the Minister to consider extending the appointment of justices of the peace to those who are not elected, and I hope that we shall hear something on this score in the Minister's reply.
I believe that the Bill is an able, earnest and thoughtful endeavour to replace the existing court system. I have no doubt that these measures will succeed. We have a tradition of service, and it is a tradition of which we should be rightly proud. I refer to the administration of justice without fear or favour.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In view of the obvious long and worthy experience of the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) within the lay system, I wish that I could agree with him, but I cannot. I hold the view already expressed that these proposals represent an opportunity missed to improve the situation.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) pointed out that in the main the Government's proposals run counter to the advice tendered and representations made by the Scottish Law Society, the Bar, and many social workers. It is a pity that the Government have not taken this opportunity to replace lay participation with a fully professional judiciary. Basically we accepted the Conservative Government's proposals to bring all summary criminal work within the sheriff court system.
We feel that this Bill has many grave deficiencies. I accept that, time and the situation being what they are, it probably makes no sense to divide the House, but before the Bill goes into Committee the Secretary of State should be clear that

many people are unhappy about the situation.
There are a number of objections to the Bill, but probably the most serious is the provision to enable district councils, if they wish, to appoint up to one-third of their number to serve as justices of the new district courts.
There is already a great deal of evidence to show that in some instances magistrates' decisions are very much coloured by their own views on and philosophy for dealing with crime. It is not uncommon for the rotation of magistrates to bring with it a complete change in sentencing policy.
The proposals in the Bill will still further politicise the lower courts. I think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie touched on that point at the end of his speech, when he encouraged the Secretary of State to consider whether some way could be devised to involve in the lay system persons not within political parties. If magistrates were appointed en masse from one political party it would have a bad effect on the community's respect for the law.
Another objection to lay magistrates concerns the lack of legal training and, therefore, the tendency for non-uniformity in sentencing. I doubt whether the proposals for the provision of specialised training courses will fill the bill. One of the serious faults in the present system is the lack of contact between the bailies on the one hand and the local sheriff on the other.
If this system is to work—I suppose that the system will come into being whether we like it or not—district court judges will have to be in regular consultation and contact with local sheriffs to achieve co-ordination and consistency of sentencing. I accept that at any level in the courts system there will be a certain inconsistency in sentencing, but we should attempt as far as possible to achieve consistency. I believe that it would best be achieved if we enabled those who have professional training to make the decisions. It will be even more important, in view of the intention expressed in the Bill to introduce legal aid into district courts. We applaud and accept that proposal, but it would be a bad thing if people found that it was


easier to get legal aid in a sheriff's court than in a district court.
At the end of the day regular consultation between the district judges and the sheriff will probably be a more effective form of training for the judge than the proposed special courses.
I should like to ask the Minister, when replying, to explain something that I am not clear about. The Bill as it stands envisages that responsibility for prosecution in the district courts will be taken over by the Crown Office. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for any length of time knows that the Crown Office is already desperately short of procurators fiscal. Equally, there is a shortage—one may say so within brackets—of procurators fiscal of calibre. Where are men to be found to prosecute in the district courts? The process will probably occupy a considerable length of time, which is why the Bill provides for district councils to appoint prosecutors to function until the Crown Office is able to take over, as it presumably will, district by district.
What will happen then is that, first, the cities will be taken over, because they represent the largest and most serious problems. Gradually, the smaller towns will follow, so that in the end there will be a division between city and county for a fair period of time, with the city prosecutors being appointed and paid for by the Crown and with the county district prosecutors being paid for by the local authorities. I would have thought that that would be unsatisfactory. I should like to know what time scale the Government envisage, and whether they are taking any steps to accelerate recruitment in that regard.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie dwelt for some time on the justices of the peace whom we now have. He referred, in a way critically, to the fact that some justices of the peace are not exactly active attenders on the bench. That is undeniably true. Nevertheless, it is also true that although they are not very active in that regard they also serve a useful rôle in the community in doing those small things which JPs are able to do.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said that it was an honour for a worthy citizen, and a recognition that

he was a person of some value in the community. I am reluctant to see that honour—it is not simply an honour—taken away, so that we are left only with those who are on active service, so to speak. It might be better to call the new district JPs bailies, or something like that, because we shall not have bailies any more. Is it not possible to retain the usefulness of the existing JPs?
Thirdly, the Bill says nothing about honorary sheriffs, who are now an important part of the lay participation process. Will they be given training? What will happen to them? I cannot say that the system of honorary sheriffs, in general, is one which I greatly admire. I should like to know what the situation will be.
As to cost, I think the hon. Gentleman indicated that it will be about £25,000 per annum more than the present cost. That is perhaps not a very large sum for a country the size of Scotland. Nevertheless, at the end, we shall still not have a professional judiciary, which is regrettable.
On balance, I say in conclusion that we—I think this applies to most lawyers in Scotland—are opposed to the setting up of district courts in Scotland. Scotland has, rightly, long prided itself on having justice administered, in the main, by professional judges. Historically, the lay participation system came from England. I do not say that from a nationalist point of view. The Liberal Party prefer the sheriff court system.
We are bound to suspect that the influence of existing lay magistrates, many of whom are councillors, has played too prominent a part in determining the Government's view. I know that many lay magistrates do an excellent job. But, in the same way, there were many excellent teachers who were without qualifications. I must say that I accepted the view completely, at the time that we set up the General Teaching Council, that we were robbing the education service of a great many valuable people. However, on balance, we accepted the proposal, initiated as it was by the present Secretary of State. Liberals think it better to have professionals, and the lack of them cannot be remedied by training courses. I am sure that the Lord Advocate agrees that a judge develops a judicial mind over


a long period of time, through sustained experience.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: That is one of the problems.

Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said, there are different points of view. But that is basically our view. We lean towards the professional system, and do not believe the lay system to be satisfactory. However, we shall not divide the House, for the very reasons advanced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Wheatley Commission. Will he tell us why that commission expressed the belief that lay courts of summary jurisdiction could be reconstituted conveniently within the new structure?

Mr. Johnston: I shall. It was because the great majority of the commission felt that way.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: It is unfortunate that we have heard so many hon. Members on the Opposition benches who are looking for the professional.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Too many.

Mr. McElhone: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nevertheless their comments about the lay magistrate and about the amateur are unworthy of the many dedicated justices of the peace and magistrates who have served in the lower courts for so many years. They have done yeoman service to the community. It was a grave omission on the part of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) not to pay tribute, now that that service is to be ended, to the many thousands of men and women who have given their services voluntarily. Many have lost time from work and received no compensation. Many have lost promotion opportunities. Many with small businesses have suffered. But they have given their services willingly, and it is to the discredit of this House that no one so far has paid tribute to the long service given by the amateur, the lay, magistrate to the community. I hope that that error will be corrected before the end of the debate.
There is also some misunderstanding, especially on the part of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, about the job of lay magistrates. The hon. Gentleman appears not to understand the type of crimes dealt with by them. We are not talking about road traffic offences or assaults on bus crews. We are talking about trivial offences involving breaches of the peace, stairhead quarrels and similar matters.
It has always been our attitude that a man should be able to be judged by his peers. The quality of mercy can well come not from someone with a law degree, because there is such a place as the university of life—often a better place than Gilmour Hill, Strathclyde or Edinburgh.
A man who is an engineer, a railway engine driver or a shop-keeper can well understand the pressures and dilemmas of people living in the slums or in stress areas, with no community facilities for their young people. The quality of mercy rests better, on balance, with the lay magistrate because he is the person from within the community. It is claimed that sentencing in magistrates' courts is erratic, But anyone who has been to the Court of Session or any other high court, or has read their proceedings, can discover the number of times that these highly qualified and skilled people have been criticised because of misdirections of juries. Recently in Glasgow there was the case of a certain lady who, to all appearances, was guilty of a certain crime, but who, because of a technicality—misdirection of the jury—is no longer in the custody of Her Majesty.
One does not like to denigrate one's own constituency but, as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns knows, from his period of office as Under-Secretary of State, I am not without experience of writing to the Scottish Office on various matters. I have had lack of success on a certain case which is interesting my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It concerns a person with the same name as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—which must demean my value to those of my constituents who are in the care of Her Majesty at present. But if my stock has gone down, it is because the attitude of my right hon. Friend has not corresponded to my thinking on that case.
Be that as it may, having had experience of advice centres and service as a magistrate—as far as I know, I am still a police judge—I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who castigated those magistrates who do not sit on the bench often. There are other rôles for justices of the peace besides sitting in court, such as witnessing and signing passport forms, and—dare I say it to those representing areas outside Glasgow?—forms testifying to lost pawn tickets. There are few of those in Glasgow today.
Therefore, there is still a vital rôle for a JP in many ways. Witnessing signatures is important. Many firms have gone into liquidation, and claims are made by workers for their wages or by small shopkeepers for their debts to be paid. Has anyone seen a form which has been signed or counter-signed by a JP in a bankruptcy case? I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate nods. He should understand the position. There is a great deal of work for JPs within the community.

Mr. Dempsey: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if it were explained to them that all they had to do was sign forms no justice would be administered at all?

Mr. McElhone: I was merely making the point that, with the many forms which have to be signed today, and with many other duties, there is a rôle for the JP who might not have time, because of other commitments, to take his place often in the burgh court. There is room for both.
I make the same argument about stipendiary magistrates. I am not arguing for the one against the other. I am saying that in these large areas there is a rôle for the stipendiary magistrate and a rôle for the lay magistrate. With the new district councils in being, the hon. Member for North Angus and Meares expects there to be stipendiary magistrates instead of lay magistrates. I wonder whether he has sat in a court of the type we are talking about where one finds what I would call sausage-machine justice. Listening to perhaps 30 or 40 cases a day which are boringly repetitive, a stipendiary magistrate becomes apathetic.
I believe that there is a true story of a stipendiary who got so fed up with the number of similar cases coming before him that he fell into a sort of daze and said to one defendant, without even listening to the evidence, "Thirty days—and if there had been a shred of evidence against you, I would have made it 60." That sums up the atmosphere of many stipendiary courts. There is nothing more melancholy than spending five days a week listening to a procession of similar cases.
There is no comparison with the sheriff court, where many cases take much longer and sheriffs do not have to spend so much time. There is a case for the lay person doing this work. It is no good arguing about devolution and bringing decision making down to the grass roots, with community councils or school councils, if, at the vital stage of a lower court, the lay magistrate is displaced.
Who will decide, under Clause 21, how legal aid is to be awarded? Anyone with experience of the sheriff court will know that the sheriff decides, that it is not an automatic right and that there is no appeal against refusal. I know of horrifying cases of legal aid being denied to people who, in my opinion and that of many solicitors, deserved it. When a person goes to a district court, will legal aid be automatic or will he have to apply to the procurator fiscal or the sheriff? At the moment, if the sheriff thinks that an applicant is guilty, he does not give legal aid; in other words, he prejudges the case. There is a complexity of laws about legal aid, and I hope that the criteria will be spelled out. If common sense had prevailed, my attempt to insert a clause about legal aid in the last Bill discussed today would have been successful. Nevertheless, I hope that the other place will think about this matter.
The district courts will now take over licensing functions. I have sat as a senior magistrate and chairman of a licensing court in Glasgow, which is no mean ex perience. Nothing is said in the Bill about confirmation courts which hear appeals from refusals to grant licences—sometimes about grant of licences. The quorum in the Glasgow Confirmation Court, the biggest in Scotland, is 23, but the anomaly is that the magistrates who


made the original decision at the magistrates court, where the number is 19, are allowed to sit at the confirmation court. This means that a man is both judge and jury, that after he has approved or opposed an application which may have caused great conflict in the local community he can decide it again in the appeal court.
That is totally wrong, and the Bill says nothing about it. If these licensing functions are to be taken over, the matter must be done properly, because a great deal of bitterness can be created in a community over allocation of licences. I could spend a great deal of time on the problems of the allocation of licences and the trouble this has caused. Nevertheless, this point must be borne in mind. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the confirmation court procedure, because I am sure that it has been missed by the skilful draftsmen who have drawn up the Bill.
One could continue at great length. However, not having had the charity of the Chair during the two-day debate on devolution, I shall respect the wishes of those who still await a chance to speak because, having endured two days on the back benches jumping up and down, which was a painful experience, I shall resume my seat with much still to say but with due regard to the matter of short speeches, which I hope will be the order of the day.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am happy to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), and to agree that there may well be a continuing rôle for justices of the peace in witnessing documents and duties of that kind. The hon. Gentleman commented on the state of lay justice when he described himself as being, so far as he knew, still a police judge.

Mr. McElhone: Up to yesterday.

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed. In this debate I should perhaps declare what could be a double interest, being both an advocate at the Scots Bar and a former member of a local authority.
In considering the Government's position and their reversal of the previous Conservative Government's policy, it is

perhaps interesting and significant that that reversal has taken place with a minimum of consultation. No one doubts that when the Conservative Government eventually came down in favour of abolishing the system of lay magistrates and replacing it by a stipendiary system, it was the result of a large and extensive consideration of the views of local authorities, the legal profession and other interested parties. Yet when the present Government reversed that decision and decided to continue with the lay system, it was stated that they had not carried out an extensive re-examination of new ways of incorporating lay justices into a new set-up and that what they had produced was the best available in the time.
The Secretary of State made quite clear what we already knew—that there had been large numbers of representations from local authorities suggesting that the lay system should be continued. But when I asked him to name any other persons or organisations which had made similar representations, other than the local authorities which are obviously interested parties, the only person who had given similar advice to whom he could refer—and no doubt a person with great authority and importance in these matters—was himself. That must have carried a great deal of weight with the Secretary of State. It does not suggest that the demand for the retention of the lay system is something shared with anyone other than lay magistrates themselves.
A similar argument cannot be true about the other side of this case. While it is true that the legal profession almost unanimously believes that the lay system is undesirable at present, there are many others who also take that view. We have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), neither of whom would have been suggested to be trying to further the interests of the legal profession for their own sake. Nevertheless, they strongly put forward the view that this is not in the interests of the people of Scotland.
I should like to refer the Secretary of State to the debate in the other place, and a remark of Lord Wallace of Campsie, who, I understand, was appointed by the Secretary of State to the


chairmanship of the East Kilbride Development Corporation and is, I presume, not to be reckoned as a person interested in the legal profession. He said:
For my part … I strongly recommend that wherever it is justified stipendiary magistrates should be appointed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 1422.]
Clearly, there is a widespread view not simply among the legal profession that, while there has been much to be said for the system of lay magistrates, it has produced many iniquities, unfairnesses and anomalies, which should not continue at present.
I want to make one point which has not so far been made in the debate. If at the end of the day it is believed desirable by the Government to retain a system of lay magistrates, it should be remembered that there are two quite different forms of lay magistracy which can be used. There is the system which has worked very well in England for many years. That system was originally produced by a Conservative Government when they were still thinking in terms of a lay magistracy. That is that people should be appointed as lay magistrates by the Secretary of State on the basis that he would appoint them because he believed that they were suitable to act as magistrates. If we are to have a lay magistracy, I can see a strong argument for such a system of appointment. One of the most iniquitous parts of the Government's intentions is not that they want to continue with the lay magistracy but that they want to ensure that a large part of the selection of those who should be lay magistrates should rest with local authorities.
That would be all very well if one believed for one minute that local authorities when appointing magistrates take into account as the only important factor, or even as the major factor, the suitability of persons to be lay magistrates. I have no doubt that by chance and on the law of averages many persons who are appointed by local authorities to be magistrates, such as the hon. Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and for Queen's Park, are first-class magistrates, but both hon. Members will accept and will admit that they were not originally appointed

because it was believed that they had special qualifications for the job, unless Glasgow is very different from the rest of Scotland in this respect as well as in every other. They will, I am sure, accept that they were appointed because it was their turn to be appointed, either because everybody senior to them had been appointed or because those senior to them who had not been appointed did not wish to be appointed.

Mr. McElhone: That is grossly unfair, not only to Glasgow but to other people, particularly to justices of the peace. However, it must be admitted that the system of choosing magistrates has a certain element of "Buggins's turn next" about it. There are many cases in which people decided that they would not accept appointments as magistrates until they had served as councillors for several years.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that fully. I do not doubt that the hon. Member is correct in that respect. My point—the hon. Member has not refuted it, nor has he sought to refute it—was that when eventually people were appointed magistrates it was because they said that they were willing to serve and because the local authority was willing to appoint them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Queen's Park does not seek to suggest that when Glasgow Corporation, Edinburgh Corporation or any other local authority elects bailees it takes into account the suitability of the person that it put forward to become a magistrate.

Mr. McElhone: That might well be said of High Court judges as well. I speak for myself. In Glasgow we had voluntary training schemes. We went down to the court in the evening and had the benefit of the procurator fiscal and others who guided us in the elementary practice of the law.

Mr. Rifkind: Again, there is no real disagreement between the hon. Member and myself. I have no doubt that many of those who were appointed were only too happy and willing to undergo training to make them better magistrates than they would otherwise have been. However, we come back to the point that those people were not appointed because of their suitability or likely suitability to be good magistrates. Unlike sheriffs and


judges—who, I fully accept, can turn out not to be good sheriffs or good judges—there is the important distinction that the people we are considering have not had legal training, whereas every sheriff and judge has had many years of legal training and experience behind him before being appointed.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Is not the hon. Gentleman again pointing to the difference of view between the two sides of the House? Is he not saying that there is no place for a lay judge? We on this side are saying that there is a place for the uninstructed layman to be a judge. There are people such as those who have been mentioned this evening who are ideally fitted to fill that niche.

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that, if the Lord Advocate accepts that view, the Government will accept the amendments made in the other place. The whole purpose of the major part of those amendments was to say "By all means let us retain the lay system, but let it be the Secretary of State who appoints the people whom he believes, taking into account the circumstances, will, with the right sort of training, make suitable and good magistrates".

Mr. Small: There are many people throughout Scotland whom the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman and I would acknowledge to be suitable candidates. The advice of the lord lieutenant of the county must be relied on. The Secretary of State cannot always know. Taking a cross-section of 1,000 people, I could not name more than 10 suitable candidates, any more than the hon. Gentleman could.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the many thousands of appointments by the Secretary of State have no significance in that respect, because the Secretary of State may not know the people concerned personally but acts on advice. No one is suggesting that the Secretary of State should know every individual personally. However, the choice should not be as it has been in the past and will be in the future if the Bill goes through unchanged. The power to choose individuals will be in the hands of the district councils. Clearly, the Government intend that the councils will nominate people and that the Secretary

of State will automatically accept them unless they have been guilty of some criminal offence or some other gross unsuitability for the job.
I can accept that if there are to be lay magistrates the Secretary of State should appoint them, but I can see no justification for the continuation of the present system. The hon. Member for Queens Park and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie may be determined suitable to be appointed lay magistrates, but there are others, in particular the individuals we all know about, who have made a farce and a disgrace of the system and have given it a bad name in certain quarters. Those are the sort of people who ought not to be appointed automatically.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: With his experience in the courts, the hon. Member will recognise that there can be a difference in judgment by sheriffs, let alone stipendiary magistrates. There will be a considerable reduction in the numbers who will be elected to Scottish local authorities under the new system, and, therefore, the number of people who will be unsuitable for appointment to the bench should be considerablv reduced.

Mr. Rifkind: I would be more inclined to believe that if I had not had experience of local government. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cooke) will confirm that in Edinburgh town council appointments to the magistrates' bench were entirely a matter of seniority, and that applied to both the political parties. I see no reason to believe that this is going to change under the new district councils, and I would be most surprised if the rest of Scotland acted any differently. That is what worries we. While many of these appointments turn out to be very good, others are deplorable.

Mr. Gourlay: Some authorities in Scotland have made a point of making the newest members of the authority magistrates, which I thoroughly disagree with. I would have thought that the obvious choice would have been to select the most experienced candidates. Under the new set-up this is more likely to occur.

Mr. Rifkind: It is as wrong to appoint someone because he is the newest as it is


to appoint someone because he is the most senior. The proper criterion should be suitability, but very few local authorities have appointed bailies and magistrates on that basis. The hon. Member knows that if appointment was in the hands of the Secretary of State that would be the criterion, and that would be much more acceptable and agreeable. I believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland, even those who support the principle of a professional magistracy, would agree with me.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not wish to argue against the hon. Member's case, which is pretty well proved, but there is one worrying aspect. If we accept his proposition that the lay magistracy should disappear, do trained legal personnel exist to fill the gap?

Mr. Rifknd: In my view, they do, because there is the very great difference that if we had a trained magistracy, a stipendiary magistracy, because it was acting on a full-time basis it would be possible to provide a service. In Glasgow there are two stipendiary magistrates who take a large proportion of the burden of problems which would otherwise fall on lay magistrates. In other parts of Scotland where there is a sparse population we could provide for itinerant sheriffs, and a similar provision could operate with the stipendiary magistrates.
Two further matters worry me. First, under Clause 3 the powers are given dependent upon whether a local authority has decided to opt for a lay magistrate system on a system of stipendiary magistrates. Subsection (2) says:
A district court when constituted by a stipendiary magistrate shall, in addition to the jurisdiction and powers mentioned in subsection (1) above, have the summary criminal jurisdiction and powers of a sheriff.
That is every important. It means that one local authority may have lay magistrates, who will have a maximum sentencing power of 60 days' imprisonment, while another district council may have chosen to have a stipendiary magistrate, who will have the maximum power of penalty of three months. Both might be trying exactly the same offence in exactly similar circumstances, but different maximum penalties can be imposed, depending on whether a stipendiary or a lay magistrate hears the case. That is potentially unfair.

The Lord Advocate: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House. What he has described is the present position where there is a stipendiary court and also a lay magistrates court.

Mr. Rifkind: I fully accept that, but it is not a good argument for continuing with the situation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that it is a desirable situation, I should like to hear the arguments for it. This is an opportunity to remove that anomaly.
It is one thing to say that different courts may impose different sentences because of the personality or views of the presiding judge. It is another thing to say that a different maximum penalty could be imposed depending on which part of Scotland one lives in. In an area such as Glasgow there is almost certain to be a stipendiary, even under the new system. A person appearing before him may receive a three months' sentence, whereas in Edinburgh, where there are lay magistrates, for the same offence in similar circumstances a person may get only 60 days. That is not justifiable. It is no excuse to say that the situation has been like that and that it should continue. Unless there are other arguments, I hope the Government will consider having the same maximum penalties for the same offences.
My final point concerns legal aid. Like every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, I welcome it, but it will mean not only a vast increase in the amount of work before the district courts but a change in the nature of the work.
The first result of legal aid will be that, instead of there just being a legally-trained person handling the prosecution, there will be, in all cases where the accused pleads not guilty, a legally trained person acting for the defence. There will be the absurd situation of the prosecution and defence being legally trained, with the only person who is not legally trained being the person asked to decide between those two individuals.

Mr. Dempsey: That is what happens now.

Mr. Rifkind: Although it can sometimes happen, it is relatively rare. I refer


the hon. Gentleman to the facts given as an example in the debate in the other place, when it was stated that:
In one month recently in the Edinburgh burgh court of a total of 288 persons appearing from custody 257 pleaded guilty".[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 1428.]
In other words, there were only 30 cases in which the accused pleaded not guilty. In the vast majority of those cases he would not have been legally represented.

Mr. Dempsey: I seldom sit on the bench in my court without somebody being defended by a legal representative.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to accept that point. But the whole reason why legal aid is to be introduced is to enable many people who might otherwise plead guilty, in order to get the case over, to have the benefit of legal advice in deciding whether or not they should plead guilty. If they choose not to plead guilty, that will be because their legal adviser believes that there is a legal reason which entitles them to do so. That means that there will be far more legal arguments never mind factual arguments, in cases heard by the district courts. Many of the matters that magistrates have to decide now are matters of fact. When both sides are legally represented, there will be far more legal argument, whether Labour Members like it or not. Therefore, the person to determine what may be complex legal arguments will be the one person in court without legal training.
There are strong arguments against the Bill. It has been improved by its passage through the other place. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the changes made there. They do not destroy the principle of lay magistracy, but they ensure that those appointed as lay magistrates will at least be the most suitable people for that position. That is an important compromise between those who hold different views about the principle of lay magistracy.
I hope that the Government will show flexibility on the matter, because it will be in the interests of justice and of those who appear in the courts to do so.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I welcome the commitment of the

Government, as evidenced by the Bill, to retain the lay magistracy. That is very good and democratic, but, all the same, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to respond sympathetically to the case for appointing more stipendiary magistrates. I do not believe that the retention of lay magistrates and the appointment of more stipendiary magistrates is necessarily incompatible. I say to some of my colleagues who have adopted a dogmatic defence of lay magistrates that it is difficult to do so when speaking to a Bill which will increase legal professional expertise and professionalism in district courts.
This is not just a matter of legal aid being made available to defending counsel. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has already referred to that. It is also the fact that we shall have more professional prosecuting counsel. That is a matter that will come directly under my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has given an undertaking, through our spokesman in another place, that that will be accomplished within the next year. On top of that, we now have written into the Bill—this was done when it was in another place—a provision that clerks of the courts shall be either solicitors or advocates. That is a new addition.
I have some sympathy for the magistrates who are left as the only laymen among the rising sea of experts in the courts. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider sympathetically the case for appointing more stipendiary magistrates. Their appointment can be reconciled with the basically lay magistracy and may well provide some useful leavening.
We must give considerable attention to training in the new circumstances. I welcome the provision in the Bill for training for lay magistrates. I want to look in some detail at the kind of training that is provided. I was a little put out by the reference of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) to "legal training". I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) that not all human wisdom is to be found in legal textbooks. I hope that the training given to lay magistrates will go beyond purely legal training and will include some social training,


so that lay magistrates will gain some comprehension of social problems.
Many of the cases that are dealt with day in and day out in the burgh courts are not in themselves evidence of crime, they are evidence of social problems. There are the cases that fall under the heading of drunkenness. Such offences constitute a significant proportion of the cases that go to the Edinburgh Burgh Court and make up a distressing proportion of the total number of cases dealt with in Scotland. In 1973 there were no fewer than 16,000 "drunk and disorderly" in Scotland. That compares with only 99,000 such cases in England and Wales.
We must remember that many offences connected with drunkenness are brought before the Scottish courts under the heading of breach of the peace. If we couple the offences of breach of the peace with offences of drunkenness we have the alarming total of about 45,000 cases connected with drunkenness being brought before the burgh courts in Scotland. That number must be compared with the figures for England and Wales. It is an alarming comparison. Scotland, with one-tenth of the population of England and Wales, has half the number of offences connected with drunkenness. The bulk of those cases go to the courts which will be district courts under the Bill.
The figures that I have given are a measure of a real, alarming and grave social problem. I am moved to ask what purpose is to be served by treating a social problem as a crime. We have evidence from researches that of the large number of people who end up in the courts on charges relating to drunkenness, about half of alcoholics. I refer to only one of my constituents, who has now appeared and been convicted before the Edinburgh Burgh Court 317 times on charges of being drunk and incapable. What possible purpose is served by taking such a person to the courts time after time? Would it not be better to try to provide some treatment?
What possible purpose is served in treating what is basically an illness as if it were a crime? Perhaps we should give the same degree of urgency which we are giving to the Bill to the circular dealing with community facilities for

alcoholics, which has now been lying around in various departments in the Scottish Office for 18 months.
There is the other heading of offences concerned with vagrancy. In Edinburgh we operate under the Edinburgh Corporation Confirmation Order, which provides two definitions which must be met before a person can be convicted of vagrancy. First, the person charged must have no lawful means of support and, second, he must have no fixed place of abode. The problem with this is that time and again the lay magistrates who have been operating in our burgh court have refused to recognise supplementary benefit as a lawful means of support, which suggests an interesting attitude to the Department of Health and Social Security.
These magistrates have also refused to recognise a lodging-house as a fixed place of abode. I have another constituent who, only the other month, was put away on a charge of vagrancy although he has been living in the same lodging-house for the past 10 years. That, I would have thought, constituted a fixed place of abode. This is a matter of acute concern to me because, as the Minister will be aware, 800 of my constituents live in lodging-houses, mainly because of the serious problem we have in Scotland of homelessness among single adult people.
Many of these 800 constituents are regularly charged with vagrancy offences. It is interesting that these offences reach a peak which coincides with the onset of the Edinburgh Festival. What is particularly bad is that when these people are fined, because they live in a lodging-house it is said that they have no fixed place of abode and therefore they are given no time to pay. Therefore, in the majority of cases, when a fine is imposed these people are imprisoned—as has happened on most occasions to my constituent, who has appeared 317 times on drunkenness charges.
I am rather concerned about the Bill's doubling of the fine. The courts are to be given power to fine not up to £50 but up to £100. I would appreciate an assurance that this will not result in a corresponding increase in the time served in lieu of a fine. I know that the maximum term is the same, at 60 days, but the effective maximum is most cases already is 30 days. Some assurance on this point would be helpful.
The main point remains that I do not see much point in treating alcoholism by bringing charges alleging drunkenness. I do not see much point in trying to treat the problem of the single homeless adult by bringing vagrancy charges. We should consider the approach of our society to these social problems. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. In the meantime, if we are to continue with this system it is imperative that recognition of the social problems which give rise to these offences be included in the training given to lay magistrates.

Mr. James Sillars: Will my hon. Friend clear up one point? I agree that lay people should be given training on the social as well as the legal aspects. Does my hon. Friend also suggest that stipendiary magistrates should receive this background training?

Mr. Cook: Indeed. I entirely accept that. I hope that if we do this training, it will not be confined to the lay magistracy. I can think of many members of the legal profession, not only in the lower courts, who would benefit from such training. We have the evidence of the children's panels, who have a well-developed and successful system of training. Many professional members of the legal bar could benefit from it. I hope that some lessons will be learned from this system when we begin training for the district courts.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) said that in Edinburgh in one month 280 cases were brought to the court, of which 250 pleaded guilty. The interesting point, which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, is that in none of the 250 cases where there was a plea of guilty and a conviction did the lay magistrate call for any kind of background or social report before sentencing. That is an unsatisfactory situation. It is not one which the House ought to tolerate. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by this Bill to change that situation.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Harry Selby: I live in an area in Glasgow which had no justice of the peace for 10 years. People would come to me with papers for signing

by a JP. I had to send them elsewhere for one. I made representations about the appointment of a JP. I nominated three people—a church worker, a trade union official and a political agent of some years' standing. Not one of them was selected.
I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that every area is properly represented. More than one-third of the JPs in Glasgow live outside Glasgow, which is a disgrace. I hope that when the process of selection takes place a person's status in society is not taken as a yardstick of his intelligence. It is not always the bailie with the most years' service who is the best bailie.
I went, with an individual who had been charged, to a court where the bailie had served for three years. He should have been a good bailie by that time. He had two similar cases to deal with. One was of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). The person concerned had gone to a public toilet at 11 o'clock and found it shut. It was in a dark corner of Govan Road. He went round the back and was arrested by two detectives. The bailie fined him £5 for not going home. In the other case a person deliberately stood on the pavement edge and spent a penny. He was fined £5 for not looking for a dark place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) referred to the question of pawn tickets. Some Members seemed to think it a joke, but people still put things in pawn and they still lose tickets. People still need to get forms filled in, and in areas where there are few JPs it is a difficult matter. It is nearly always working class people who are in difficulty.
I have never stood in a dock. I have never pleaded a case in a dock. I have never sat on a bench as a bailie. I have never wished to sit in judgment of my fellow men. I have never wanted to be a Solomon. Since we are talking about cases in the lower courts, and petty crime, we need not worry too much about the legal training expected of JPs. What is required is an understanding of life—how one's neighbours live and how one has lived oneself. No one can say that he has not broken the law in one way or another.
I hope that when it receives the names from the nominated bodies the executive will strike a fair balance, so that the working class is properly represented.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: We have had an interesting debate in which many hon. Members have covered the broad principles of the Bill. The hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) and Inverness (Mr. Johnston), representing the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Party respectively, have strong reservations about the changes from the October 1973 proposals which are contained in the Bill. We appreciate the necessity for the Bill and recognise the need for its rapid progress through the House because of the Local Government (Scotland) Act which comes into force in the spring.
The Bill translates the two lay summary courts in Scotland—that is to say, the burgh courts and the JP courts—into district courts. That is a significant change. I share the view of my hon. Friends that an opportunity for reform has been lost. The chance to reform the law comes but seldom. The Secretary of State has not proved his case for continuing a system which is similar to the present one, and has failed to take advantage of a great opportunity. At the very best, so far the case has not been proven.
I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) in paying warm tribute to the justices of the peace, whether they are ex officio or JPs in their own right, for all they have done and for the part they will play in future. The tasks which the district courts will take on have not been put into perspective. The most recent figures I have are for 1970, when there were 210,000 cases of summary justice in Scotland, of which 116,000 were in the sheriff courts, 85,000 in the burgh courts and 9,000 in the JP courts. So we are talking about just under half the cases of summary jurisdiction in Scotland. That is a significant figure, and it is one reason why so much concern has been expressed that we should get the system right.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) spoke about the social problems, and I agree with what he said about training. This is an opportunity which must not be lost. As he knows,

when I was in the Scottish Office I took a particular interest in alcoholism. I agree with him that the facilities and resources in Scotland for dealing with this terrible illness are inadequate. I hope that when the Secretary of State has resources, which I know are not easy to find at present, further assistance will be given in providing the necessary facilities.
Over the last three years there has been considerable controversy. The Conservative Government had sound reasons for a change to stipendiary magistrates within the context of the sheriff court. As Scotland has a long tradition of professional justice, as indeed of lay justice, this view was supported by an influential body of opinion—and that opinion should not be cast aside as lightly as the Government have sought to cast it aside in this debate.
Therefore, in his reply the Minister should spell out in a little more detail who has advocated so strongly the return to lay summary justice. We know that The Cities and the Convention of Royal Burghs are in favour of lay justices, but may we be told what is the view of the County Councils' Association? We understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that the Law Society is not in favour of the change. I do not think that the weight of evidence—other than the Secretary of State's personal view—has been sufficient to embrace this major change. I shall look forward to hearing the Minister give more factual details about which bodies supported this case over and above the two local authority organisations which I have mentioned.
Having accepted the position on the principle of the subject, which has been so clearly expressed by so many of my hon. Friends, I move on to consider the more detailed points in the Bill. A great many will be raised in Committee, but there are a number on which we should like answers tonight, so that when we reach the Committee stage we shall have a basis of fact on which to argue amendments.
The first point on which I wish to question the Minister relates to the staffing of the district authorities to run these courts. It is well known that legal assistants are in desperately short supply in the authorities. Where are we to obtain, by the middle of May, legal assistants who


can be spared from local authority work to undertake a changeover to the new system and to staff the courts? The weight of work will be very much greater, and I believe that these legal assistants will need to be whole-time in the running of these new courts. The courts cannot be staffed by the type of local authority officer who works only on a part-time basis. It will be very difficult for such an officer so to organise his local authority timetable that it embraces work in supervising district courts.
The Government, so far, have given no idea of the practical difficulties of staffing the courts by the middle of May. All the district authorities are now considering where the courts shall sit. Perhaps we can be told whether accommodation will be available.
There is also to be borne in mind the question of cost. The new set-up will cost more money than the present one. I hope that we shall hear a little more about the estimated workload of these courts, since this matter has been highlighted by several hon. Members in this debate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park was wrong to say that district courts would not deal with motoring offences. Perhaps the Minister will clear up that matter. I understand that they can deal with motoring offences; they can endorse licences but cannot disqualify.

Mr. McElhone: Road traffic offences have always been a sheriff court matter. If the system has been changed, it is certainly not in the Bill.

Mr. Monro: We shall listen to the Minister's reply with interest, and we hope that he will clear up that matter.
I hope that we shall be given a little more information about the procurator fiscal. I understand that responsibility in that respect will lie with the district, and that eventually the duties of the procurator fiscal will be transferred to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. I hope that the Minister will tell us when this will happen throughout Scotland. I know that he said that to begin with this would have to be done on the basis that the Lord Advocate's procurator fiscal service could cope partially at present, but certainly not totally. We would like to know when this will happen.
I turn now to training. Again, I have grave reservations about the timetable and who is to do the work. I notice that in future the new justices committee, which I welcome, will be responsible for training, but that committee will not be set up until the Bill has been enacted. Training should be going on now, because it will be the linchpin of the success of these courts in future.
I press the Minister on the timing. As a justice of the peace I had a letter in December. I have not heard from any colleagues who are justices that timetables have been arranged for training. Does the Minister anticipate that the one training officer to be appointed can look after the whole of Scotland? Will the courses be residential? Where will they take place? I recall that in my days as Civil Defence Commissioner I went to Taymouth Castle for civil defence courses lasting two or three days. Is that the kind of thing that is envisaged for the training of justices in future?
It is no use the Government saying that they have not had time to consider these matters. They have been in office for nearly a year. They should have contemplated doing this last summer rather than now.
Turning to the appointment of justices of the peace, I declare my interest and position as a JP. I am sure that the hon. Member for Queen's Park has read paragraph 37 of the White Paper on justices of the peace and justices' courts. I am in the same position as the hon. Gentleman. A Member of Parliament should not sit as a justice in his own constituency. I am sure that he does not do that.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a useful contribution to the debate. Whilst we appreciate the good work done by justices, we must not overlook those who want to be involved in this type of work—particularly social work. These justices can put their names forward for consideration for membership of children's panels.
Our real difference with the Government is over the issue that was raised strongly in another place concerning the nomination of one-third of the members of district councils as justices. I believe that is wrong, and that provision was removed in another place. Lord Hughes


made it clear in another place, giving very cavalier consideration to what their Lordships were saying, that this provision would be replaced when the Bill came back to this House.
I hope that the Minister, in replying, will give us at least a firm statement that the matter will be reconsidered before further amendments are put down in Committee. If he does not, at the risk of giving the Patronage Secretary and Deputy Chief Whip a coronary, we may well be disposed to divide the House, because we think this is a crucial point in the Bill—[Interruption.] My own Whips are away looking for troops.
I think that this is the way out of the predicament into which the Minister has got himself. Why cannot the normal justices of the peace advisory committees, which are now in force and are chaired by the Lords Lieutenant, be trusted to appoint the 400 or 500 justices throughout Scotland? It is not an enormous task, and those advisory committees know their stuff. I see no reason why that should not happen.
The point was made that it is possible that justices might not be resident in all areas if they were appointed, because of their position as district councillors. There will be a much better geographical spread and an opportunity for a much fairer selection if that is done by the normal justices of the peace advisory committees.
There are two criticisms. First, the system will be grossly weighted against the landward areas. Secondly, how will the district authority nominate one-third of its members? Many people have serious doubts that the matter will be decided by a party caucus before a meeting and there will be no careful selection in terms of quality, which we feel is so important with the appointment of justices. That point was well brought out by the hon. Member for Galloway and by the hon. Member for Inverness.
The Bill indicates that provosts, bailies and police judges will be promoted automatically to be justices in the new courts. Will they be plus or minus the one-third, or will they be included in the one-third? That could make a significant difference in the balance of the appointments.
I want to press the Minister on another important point, of which the Govern-

ment are unaware. They say that the provosts, bailies and police judges from burghs will be appointed ex officio justices of the peace. Why is it that the present chairmen of district councils, who are also ex officio justices of the peace, will not be in a similar position? Is that not grossly unfair to the landward areas? There is not a squeak from the Government Front Bench. I should like to hear why there is such gross discrimination against the rural areas in Scotland, although it is understandable perhaps from the point of view of Government supporters.
My next point is equally important in relation to the addition to the original Bill proposed in the other place by Lord Selkirk and Lord Balerno. I raise this point in relation to the initiative to appoint a stipendiary magistrate, if required, by the Secretary of State. The position at present is fine. However, if the Government fulfil their intention, as indicated by Lord Hughes in another place, only the district authority can initiate the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. This may be satisfactory, but it seems to me that we would be in a better wall-back position if the Secretary of State, who should retain his supreme authority in Scotland, also had the right to appoint a stipendiary magistrate if he felt that it was in order to do so.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the District Courts (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Monro: This is important, for several reasons. Not only are we allowing to let slip an opportunity which may be required in the future—and we have to bear in mind what others have said—we shall be cutting 250 JP courts into about 55 district courts. The work load will be very heavy in those 55 courts. It could be that the Secretary of State had grave reservations about the working of the lay justices in those courts and would like to see the initiation of stipendiary magistrates. This, in a way, was behind the thoughts of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I have heard that Edinburgh would not take it amiss


if it had a stipendiary magistrate. Glasgow's stipendiaries each deal with about 15,000 cases a year, which clearly shows the valuable work that they do in Glasgow. I hope that we shall have a favourable answer from the Government about that.
I hope, too, that the Minister will deal with the point brought out so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands about the different maximum penalties under a lay magistrate and under a stipendiary. I should like to know why the practice should be continued when it is obviously an anomaly.
I come, then, to legal aid. I want to be sure that it will work in practice. I do not suggest that any Government supporter will be drunk and disorderly tonight—certainly not the Secretary of State—but were he to appear in court tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, would he be able to get legal aid then and there? At present, in the sheriff court the sheriff could arrange legal aid, but can these lay magistrates arrange legal aid at short notice, and will it be practical to provide the solicitors to defend anyone appearing in court at very short notice? This is important, but it is a practical point because we are naturally in favour of bringing in this legal aid provision. It is a valuable one, but we see considerable difficulties in its way.
Is the Minister ready to appoint a director of the Scottish courts administration, now that Lord Wilson has been appointed sheriff as from 1st January?
All in all, we have many reservations about the Bill. We appreciate the urgent need for it to become law. But we feel that it is crucial to have favourable answers to our questions before we announce our future intentions in relation to our opposition to it.

10.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): It is inevitable that this debate has been almost entirely centred on whether we should have lay participation in the new district courts or whether those district courts should be fully professional.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) suggested that some of my hon.

Friends might come under the influence of drink, and I turn my mind back to the winding-up speech in last night's debate when my right hon. Friend suggested that in this Burns season a toast to the Lassies would be appropriate. Even in the few moments since the hon. Member for Dumfries resumed his seat I have made up a little parody of some lines from "Tam o' Shanter":
When to drink you are inclined
Or Cutty Sarks run in your mind
You have no need to be afraid
Because in the district court you'll get legal aid.
The debate has highlighted the difference between the two sides of the House. I am sure that no one, in whichever party in opposition, would dispute that the collective experience and, therefore, I suggest, the collective wisdom of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the work we have been discussing has been invaluable, and, of course, this weighed heavily when it came to a decision on whether to have lay participation in these courts.
I have been asked about the representations made to the Government about lay participation. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked what were the views of the Association of County Councils. I do not know why he picked out that association. Although it was present, with other local authority associations seeking a continuation of lay justices, the ACC did not express a view.
I was also asked about the staffing of the district courts by the district authorities. We have been told by the local authority associations that the new districts will be able to provide legally qualified clerks of court, either from their full-time staff or from the regional staff, which is another sources of supply which could be tapped should the need arise, or from local solicitors appointed on a part-time basis. The important thing is that the staff would be legally qualified.
Hon. Members have asked about the range of offences that will be tried or considered in the new district courts, particularly traffic offences. It was originally proposed that these courts should try traffic offences and have the power to endorse a driving licence but not suspend it. That, however, is not included in the Bill. The new district courts will cater for much the same range of offences as the burgh police courts do at present.
We regard training as all-important in setting up the new district courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) brought out some very valuable points in this connection, particularly in relation to the question of social background, and including the problems of alcoholism and vagrancy, which are serious. It is the intention to include training on the question of social background, and no doubt alcoholism and vagrancy would be included within that context.
Clause 14 empowers the Secretary of State to make schemes for the training of justices of the peace, and lays a duty on the justices' committee in each area to implement and administer these training schemes. Training may be considered under two heads—what training it may be possible to give existing justices before the district courts open for business on 16th May and the long-term arrangements when the new scheme is fully operative. For the transition to the new court, one must obviously rely heavily on the experience of existing burgh magistrates and justices of the peace. About 700 experienced magistrates and 1,000 justices with court experience have expressed their willingness to serve in the district courts, and justices without experience have also offered to serve. Many of the justices to be nominated by district councils will no doubt also wish to sit in these courts.
Even the experienced justices and magistrates should receive some training appropriate to their experience before 16th May. So some training will be given even to the most experienced magistrates before that date. Those with no experience who we consider cannot begin training too soon if they are to contribute to the new courts will be given training as well.
The Government regard training as so important that a basic scheme has already been drawn up on lines approved by the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, provided over by the Lord Justice Clerk. This scheme will be sent very soon to the chief executives of district councils, with a memorandum of advice on local arrangements for giving effect to it, including such matters as securing the services of sheriffs, lawyers with court experience, university lecturers in law, social workers and others to give lectures to the justices.
As my right hon. Friend said, the post of training officers for justices of the peace has been created in the Scottish Office, and it is hoped to appoint a suitably qualified person very soon. We are intent on proceeding as speedily as is consistent with efficiency and good training in order to ensure that the justices who staff these courts will have some training before 16th May; in the longer term the training will become much more extensive.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made heavy weather of the previous Government's White Paper and their change of mind and what brought it about. At times he was struggling to justify their change of attitude about lay participation. He must know that that White Paper, which proposed the retention of lay judges, received generally warm support, apart from the proposals of non-legally qualified clerks and from a section of the legal fraternity.
When we came to office in March 1974, we received strong representations from the local authorities. In our view, it was reasonable to assume that there was a case for maintaining a lay element and that that case had widespread support. It is important to recognise that that view was expressed by local authority representations from all political shades of opinion and not from one particular shade of opinion, as seems to have been thought by some Opposition Members who have spoken this evening.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On the latter point, I agree. There is nothing political about this or about the opinions expressed. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned those areas in which strong representations were made and on what very important parts of these proposals the representations were made. Surely those were of extremely great importance. Will he also say what was the opinion and advice from the central advisory committee?

Mr. Ewing: Yes, I shall be coming to the opinion and advice of that committee. The House will also find that opinion and advice very interesting.
We do not regard the objections voiced by the legal profession as being minor


objections. They were considered. But what we are saying as a Government is that we took the broad consensus of opinion, which led us to the view, rightly, that lay participation should continue.
On the question of advice from the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, that committee discussed the proposals on two occasions. On the first occasion it considered the proposals based on the working party's report, and supported in principle the scheme which was afterwards outlined in the White Paper. On the second occasion the committee considered the matter again in the light of the representations against the White Paper and recommended in favour of lay justices by a narrow majority. Therefore, the advice of that committee, albeit by a small majority, was that we should continue the lay participation.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, however, that slight majority in favour of lay magistrates was in favour of lay magistrates appointed by the Secretary of State or lay magistrates elected by the local authorities? There is a very important difference.

Mr. Ewing: There is a very important difference, but the debate tonight has not been about by whom the lay justices should be appointed. The debate has been about whether we should have lay justices at all.

Mr. Rifkind: No.

Mr. Ewing: The fact is that the advice that we have, broadly, is that lay participation should continue in the district courts. I feel that I have dealt adequately with that point.
We are prepared to consider anything that is said or proposed—including the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfries, who asked us to be flexible and mentioned other matters—without giving any promises or making any commitments. It must be put on record that the advice that we have and the broad consensus of opinion is that lay participation should continue in those courts.
On the question about the quality of justice, raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, it is worth

quoting from paragraph 3 of his Government's White Paper, wherein they said:
We also believe that a proper system of training will result in a professional and uniform standard of justice among lay justices.
There can be no doubt that the standard of justice and the uniformity of justice—if that is the correct expression—will be achieved by the system of training which we shall introduce as soon as possible.
I turn now to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). In his capacity as a former magistrate he brought his wealth of experience to the debate and illustrated the great risk involved in turning over this level of court to a fully professional system. We must appreciate the level of court about which we are talking and are about to legislate.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson)—surprisingly, in my view—agreed that there should be stipendiary magistrates in all these courts and that the courts should be professionally staffed. I got the impression that later on, when the leader of his party was present, he did not agree with the hon. Member. This doctrine comes strangely from a party which considers that in certain respects the people of Scotland are able to legislate for themselves.
Members of Parliament could to a certain extent be described as amateurs. We preside over great legislative affairs. However, we are not prepared to give ordinary people at this level of justice the right to judge their fellow men. It seems that the policy of the party of the hon. Member for Galloway is that people can have a say in their own affairs as long as they do not want to take decisions such as this. In Committee I shall want to hear how that stance can be justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), in welcoming lay participation, again brought to bear a great wealth of experience. I reassure my hon. Friend that there are no fears whether we shall have a sufficient number of justices to staff these courts. The best information now available to us is that about 1,730 existing justices have offered to serve, of whom about 1,000 have at least some experience in court work. With the addition of about 700 existing burgh magistrates and


police judges, this provides a hard core of experience for the new courts. We expect also that there will be a further 400 justices flowing from the appointments for the district courts. In total there will be about 2,500 justices willing to do all the work. This is probably far more than will be required.

Mr. Dempsey: There will be more work to do.

Mr. Ewing: There is no evidence to support that contention. The figure of 2,500 compares with the 1,600 calculated to be required in paragraph 30 of the White Paper. I believe that there would be a good response if we were to make a search for new justices, but we consider that we have no difficulties in that respect.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of loss of earnings. The Bill provides, as does the present law, for the payment of an allowance to justices of the peace. There will be provision for compensation for loss of earnings, but it will have to be as at present. Therefore, the maximum will apply and no doubt the level of the maximum will be reviewed from time to time. It obviously depends upon the circumstances of the individual. The present maximum of £6·70 is not liable to tax.
There is provision in Clause 15(2)(c) whereby the Secretary of State is empowered to deal with justices who do not attend to their duties in the court. On a constituency basis, I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that in the Monklands district, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, we have 24 experienced judges and 16 magistrates who are ready even at this stage to serve the new district courts. In the Motherwell district there are 35 experienced justices and 14 magistrates who are ready to serve in these new courts, so there should be no trouble in staffing them.
The hon. Member for Inverness was in favour of the professional system, although, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the Royal Commission on local government did not quite take the view expressed by the hon. Member. I got the feeling that it had slipped the hon. Member's memory that the Royal Commission took the same view as the Government, which is that

these lay courts could be set up in conjunction with the district authorities.
On the question of staff shortage in respect of procurators fiscal, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is quite confident that there will be people to take overall prosecutions in two stages. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked about a timetable for the taking over of these prosecutions by the Crown. We expect all the procurators fiscal will be in these courts by May 1976. My right hon. and learned Friend is confident that we can meet this date without any problems.
I was interested in the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), and I hesitate to say that the Glasgow police court stories are legion. If time allowed I could tell a few myself, but I shall not be tempted to do so at this time of night. However, my hon. Friend brought out a very important point concerning the level of these courts and the type of case to be tried there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) made the same point. It is important to realise that the people finding themselves in these courts will, by and large, be normal, law-abiding citizens who fall foul of the law once in a lifetime. There can be nothing more awe-inspiring than to have to go into a court faced with the paraphernalia of the law, probably for a minor offence. In the past the courts at borough police court level dealt admirably with this type of offence. When the district courts come into being the set-up and the staff will be adequate to take over this type of offence.
I wish to correct what was obviously a wrong impression by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park. The Bill in no way affects the constitution of the licensing court or the court of appeal. The district courts will not take over licensing functions. The licensing courts and the court of appeal will remain as they are. The Bill does not affect licensing courts or licensing appeal courts.

Mr. McElhone: We are grateful to my hon. Friend for giving each hon. Member an answer to the points raised. However, the Bill mentions the question of licensing courts. If there are no longer to be magistrates in areas such as Glasgow, who will staff the licensing courts? I am concerned that suitable


people should perform this important function.

Mr. Ewing: That is a different matter, which does not arise on the Bill. My hon. Friend mistakenly refers to magistrates. There will be no such person, as a result of local government reorganisation. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall write to him on the question of staffing and he will be given the information he requires.

Mr. McElhone: I realise that we shall have no more magistrates. However, there has been great unhappiness about the question of sheriffs dealing with legal aid applications. Who will judge the question of legal aid in the district courts?

Mr. Ewing: The matter of the licensing court is provided for in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Half justices of the peace and half county councillors will staff the licensing courts and licensing appeal courts.
The question of legal aid is important. In summary cases in the sheriff courts legal aid is granted by the sheriff, and the Government take the view that it is entirely consistent with this that justices should grant legal aid in district courts. Arrangements of this kind will have the advantage of being quick, decisive and inexpensive, and will be carried out by people with knowledge of local circumstances. We accept that the one matter in which the justices who will staff the courts will not be experienced is legal aid. Therefore, we are anxious to ensure, and will ensure, that they will have training in legal aid matters before 16th May.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which is concerned that the justice who granted legal aid might subsequently hear the case. Would not that be unsatisfactory?

Mr. Ewing: We shall examine that matter. We have no ground for concern. The same situation applies in the sheriff court.
In conclusion—

Mr. Monro: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his detailed reply, but if he is coming to his peroration, may I point out that he has not answered

the two points about which we have pressed most strongly—the appointment of the justices to the extent of one-third by the district authorities, and the amendment made in another place on the opportunity for the Secretary of State to appoint stipendiary magistrates? We shall want an answer on those two matters before we make a decision.

Mr. Ewing: It was on those two points that I was going to conclude. On the question of stipendiary magistrates and the Secretary of State, I ask the House to await our proposals. If they await our proposals with patience I am sure that their patience will be well rewarded. I ask the House to be a little more patient on the stipendiary issue. We shall be making proposals but I cannot say any more at this stage.
It is the Government's view that the district councils should have the right to appoint a third of their members to staff the district courts. It is a long time ago but I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was prepared to examine any alternative proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Dumfries and his hon. Friends. I also said that I was not prepared to give any unqualified commitment or assurances or anything of that order. At present we consider that the district councils should have the right to appoint a third of their members to staff the district courts.
The view is prevalent that the local authorities will play a large part in the appointment of the judges. The fact is that the majority of appointments will remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland, as is the position with the justices now. Even if all district councils appoint their full one-third, the total number of ex-officio justices will be only about 400 for the whole country as against about 5,000 justices at present.
There are no grounds for anyone to say that the local authorities will be playing a major part in staffing the district courts. They will be playing a significant part but not a major part.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister accept that they will be playing a major part in the four cities of Scotland where the bulk of the population is centred?

Mr. Ewing: That is possibly true. That must be considered, but on balance


we consider that it is an acceptable proposition. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is right that even in the four cities the district councils will play a major part in staffing the courts. I would want to consider that point. I am not absolutely sure that that is correct.
No one underestimates the importance of the question of whether or not lay participation should continue in the district courts. It is our view that it should continue. It is our view that the Bill is a good Bill, and, like my right hon. Friend, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make provision as respects district courts and justices of the peace in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

WRITTEN-OFF MOTOR VEHICLES (LOG BOOKS)

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: This is the second occasion on which I have raised, on the Adjournment of the House, the question of the need to protect the purchaser of a car that has been totally written-off by an insurance company and subsequently repaired. I first ventilated the matter two years ago, following a series of Parliamentary Questions. Prior to that Adjournment debate the Minister decided to set up a working party from the Department to consider the problem.
The working party met on 16th February 1972. Together with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association and other organisations, I met the working party to discuss the issue. At the end of the year, after many months of meetings, the working party reported that it was of the opinion that reconstituted cars—cars that had been wrecked and subsequently repaired—were only a minor factor in road safety. The working party recommended that no action should be taken. Since then we have had a new Government, and I hope that the Minister will look upon this problem more favourably.
Let me detail the situation again. Three or four years ago, when a car was so badly damaged in an accident that the cost of repairing it exceeded its value it was written-off by the insurance company as a total loss. This information was stamped on the log book. If the car was subsequently repaired an intending purchaser knew that he was buying a car that had been extensively damaged in an accident. He could then make his own arrangements to have the car examined by a competent inspector. This scheme of stamping log books, which was voluntarily entered into by the insurance companies, was abandoned. I have yet to discover the reason why. I suspect

that the insurance companies could get a better price for their written-of wrecks if the log books were not stamped. I am only hazarding a guess here. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why this was done.
Many of these wrecked cars get into the hands of back-street repairers who have no scruples. They do not possess the jigs, tools or expensive machinery needed to realign a badly buckled car, or to assess whether the axles and the steering of a car are out of true. As a consequence, corroded bodywork is sometimes patched up with fibre glass. This looks fine until three or four weeks after the car has been bought, when the fibre glass falls out. In some cases when a dealer has a car with a smashed front end he will cut a front end from a similar model that has rear damage and weld it to the first car. In many cases these cars are sold at inflated prices. They are a danger not only to the driver but to all road users. In my opinion there should be some protection against these practices.
I must make it clear that many cars that have been written-off are repaired by reputable garages. Rebuilding wrecked cars is not illegal, and vehicles repaired by reputable manufacturers are safe and roadworthy. That is why reputable dealers organised in the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association, the Motor Agents Association and the Institute of Automobile Assessors are backing this campaign to put the back-street dealer out of business.
Let me give an illustration of the situation by quoting a letter—one among many—which I received from a constituents on this subject:
We advertised recently for a 1600E Cortina, as they are in rather short supply, and had a telephone call from a young man who offered to bring his 1600E over for us to look at. This he did. He explained that it had had a slight bump on the bonnet and that he had had it resprayed. He took my husband and son out for a ride, and they thought the car was in quite good condition. After thinking it over for 24 hours, my husband decided to buy the car. The young man said that he had two log books, as one had been lost and turned up after the second one had been issued, and that we could have either. He added that he would prefer the transactions to be in cash. My husband arranged to collect the £900 from the bank, but the two log books worried me, so I telephoned the Taxation Office who told me the car had been in an accident in July


1971. I telephoned the seller to say that we wished to have the car inspected by the RAC. He was quite annoyed at the delay Ȧ".
My constituent said that at the point the seller became very abusive. She continued:
Last weekend we bought a car from a reliable garage and while chatting to the mechanic mentioned the other car. The mechanic knew the seller and said that it had been two scrap cars joined togetherȦ".
That is just one of a number of letters I have received from people who have been defrauded by back-street, so-called garage proprietors who are cannibalising wrecked cars and selling them, often at inflated prices. The cars are a hazard and a danger to road users.
I am asking the Minister tonight to say why the scheme for the stamping of log books has been abandoned. Has the Minister consulted the insurance companies? Has he agreed with those companies that they should abandon the stamping of log books? If they have done so, what reasons have been advanced for this practice having been discontinued?
I should like to see an arrangement—this would probably require amendment of the law—to provide that if a car is totally written off the log book is surrendered to the licensing authority and not reissued until the reconstituted vehicle has been examined by a competent Ministry examiner.
I am asking the Minister to afford protection to the intending purchaser of a car which has been written off as a total wreck and has been reconstituted. I am asking that that intending purchaser should be given the same protection as that given to any other consumer. We all know about the mass of legislation which has been envisaged to give protection to the consumer so that in almost every commodity he buys the consumer is protected against false trade descriptions. Yet the intending purchaser of a second-hand car is given no protection whatever. In ignorance he can buy a car which has been totally wrecked, rebuilt and sold again. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will now try to renegotiate with the insurance companies an agreement whereby they will stamp the log books.
The Department has been much too complacent about this matter. I first

raised it at Question Time four years ago. We are not asking for a revolution; we simply want protection to be given to a prospective purchaser of a secondhand car so that he will at least know that at some time or other the vehicle has been a wreck.
I cannot understand the Department's adamant attitude—setting up a departmental committee that meets for 10 months to consider the question, and fobbing me off time and time again with parliamentary answers that are meaningless. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will now renegotiate an agreement with the insurers that log books of wrecked cars will be stamped to the effect that the cars have been wrecked, and that, if necessary, he will tell the insurers that if they are not prepared to enter into a voluntary agreement he will take steps to make the system compulsory?
I hope that after this long and constant battle we shall be able to win a minor victory. We have a different Government, with a different outlook. We have a different Minister. I hope that they will look afresh at the problem, and that at long last the motorist will have some assurance that he will be protected when he buys a second-hand car.

10.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a matter that every hon. Member must surely support—the adequate protection of the purchaser of a seriously damaged car which, if improperly repaired, would constitute a road safety hazard.
My hon. Friend has been involved in the matter for a long time. I am sorry if the answers he has received from the Department in the past have not been helpful. I hope that many of the answers I have given him have been slightly more helpful than he suggested. I shall try to answer some of the points he raised tonight, and I hope that I can give him some satisfaction, but it is a slightly more complicated question than he may realise.
My Department is vitally concerned with road safety. It is constantly seeking ways of reducing the tragic toll of road


accidents and looking for ways of effectively utilising the resources available to us.
My hon. Friend has suggested that a written-off car should have its log book withdrawn until satisfactory repairs have been carried out, it has been certified as roadworthy by a competent examiner, and the log book has been endorsed showing that the car was a written-off vehicle. This would ensure proper repair and warn the prospective purchaser of the vehicle's history.
The endorsement proposal was tried in 1967, when insurance companies entered into a voluntary agreement whereby written-off vehicles were notified to the local motor taxation offices and their log books endorsed. Purchasers were thus forewarned. Experience showed that the arrangement had many faults: the "written-off" principle was not a satisfactory basis for defining a badly damaged vehicle, as other factors also affect the insurance company's decision; the system did not cover cars that were not comprehensively insured, or cars badly damaged but not written off; and properly repaired cars were marked for the rest of their lives by the log book endorsement. The arrangement was ended in February 1973 because it was unfair, and made no discernible contribution to road safety, as there was no evidence from the accident statistics that repaired vehicles were less safe than others of their age and type.
Despite the lack of evidence that a significant problem exists, I have considered whether badly damaged vehicles should be tested before being returned to the road. There are a number of difficulties here, the first being the size of the problem. A "seriously damaged vehicle" is not a clearly defined term, and hence there are no statistics for the number of vehicles involved. It is estimated that the insurance companies pay compensation for the total loss of some 50,000 vehicles a year, and there are others which would qualify if they were insured. No one knows how many of these vehicles find their way back on to the roads, and there are no guesses at all of how many vehicles require major repairs without reaching this stage. Nevertheless, the chief constables do not regard the faulty repair of damaged

vehicles as a significant cause of accidents. For example, the West Yorkshire police had not heard of a single example in a sample of over 9,600 accidents.
Secondly, there is the nature of the sort of fault which is usually instanced when expressing concern over seriously damaged vehicles. This is either distortion of the chassis or the welding together of the frame from disparate parts. Neither is easily detected and neither would show up on a normal MOT test. If seriously damaged vehicles are to be retested before re-use, logic demands that they should be subjected to a different test, which should inevitably be more thorough and expensive.
We also have the problem of enforcement. The first difficulty lies in identifying the vehicles. Not all accidents which result in serious damage are reported to the police. Likewise, the insurance companies do not hear of those accidents where vehicles are not insured against damage. Nor do garages carry out all repairs to seriously damaged vehicles. There is, therefore, no easy way of identifying these vehicles.
The second difficulty lies in ensuring that a vehicle once identified as seriously damaged is not used again until tested. Theoretically, this would be easier, but it would involve resources in keeping records of vehicles notified and following up applications to an extent which would not be justified in the light of the size of the problem.
My conclusion, therefore, must be that any proposal to test these vehicles should be resisted on the ground that it is not a cost-effective use of resources. However, if anyone can produce evidence of a significant road accident danger from these vehicles, I shall review my policy in the light of that evidence.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: My hon. Friend is approaching this problem entirely from the statistical point of view, which is that these reconstituted vehicles do not cause accidents. The statistical evidence is not available. Apart from that, will he approach the matter from the consumer's point of view? Cars may break down; they may not cause accidents. However, the motorist is being defrauded when he buys a reconstituted car. Therefore, from the consumer's point of view, will my hon. Friend consider ensuring that log books are stamped?

Mr. Carmichael: I was going to deal with the consumer aspect. I may have given my hon. Friend the wrong impression. I dealt with the statistics to some extent when I quoted the example of the West Yorkshire police, which I have no reason to believe is exceptional. They have not heard of one example of a reconstituted car being involved in any of the 9,600 accidents that they sampled.
Referring to consumer protection, on 1st January last the House took measures to increase the protection given to purchasers of motor cars by strengthening the law regarding the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. It is now an offence to expose for sale, to put on display in a showroom or offer for sale at auction, a vehicle which contravenes the construction and use regulations relating to brakes, steering, tyres, construction, lights and general safety. However, the prospective buyer is wise if he has the vehicle examined before purchase. I cannot stress that strongly enough.
I have been interested in motor cars for a long time. The motor car is a peculiar symbol in our society. The number of people who save for a long time and invest a great deal of money in the purchase of motor cars is incredible. A number of salesmen—by no means all—know how to play on the psychological desire of people to own motor cars. It is quite unusual for people buying a car to behave as the writer of that letter to my hon. Friend behaved. That is an estimable way to go about it. But many people, having saved for a long time, when they are spending a lot of money to buy a car, do so in a most haphazard and thoughtless way. I cannot stress too much that if one is spending between £600 and £900 for a car one should also spend £10 or £20 to have it examined by an association or an examiner.
Unfortunately, I know—friends of mine go out and do it—that people go out to buy a car saying that they must have it that weekend. It is the fraility of human nature which many car salesmen are masters at exploiting.
I would say a word about consumer protection in the more general sense of value for money—a subject more properly for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 have greatly strengthened the purchasers' position, and if he is sold a car which is falsely described he may well have good grounds for redress in the civil courts.
I am sure that my hon. Friend has read of many cases—I know of his interest in this subject—where a car's "clock" has been turned back. That was one method which was used to try to sell a car—pretending that it had done much less mileage than was the case. There have been a number of cases in the courts where car salesmen and companies have got into serious difficulty. There are protections.
I am not trying to brush my hon. Friend off with the lethargy of the Department. I have looked at this matter with care. I thought it was much easier than I have since found it to be. It is not something we are sleeping on. We are very concerned, and any measures that hon. Members can suggest which will improve or maintain road safety—anything to help in the battle for road safety—will be looked at carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.